Not at all, happy to.

Margaret Thatcher had a rough ride as Education Minister. The early 1970s saw student radicalism at its height and British politics at its least civil. Protesters disrupted her speeches, the opposition press vilified her, and education policy itself seemed set immovably in a leftwards course, which she and many Conservatives found uncomfortable.

I still stand my ground upon education. Until we get back to basics with the three R's philosophy, as generally supported by the right wing, we are doomed. I will agree that perhaps my general comments may be more applicable to the turn of the last Century, but that's the only concession you are getting ;-)

Depends what your goal is. The changes in education were led by changes in understanding in how people learn, what is best for children and what education is for.

Before you make sweeping statements you should explain what you believe the purpose of education is.

You are old enough to remember the Grammar School system. It would have been well and good for people like me who would have passed the 11+ (I passed the later equivalent) but is segregating people according to class and ability what we really want to go back to?

The progressive system you are decrying was based on child centered learning. However, what has cause the death of standards is not the "loonie left" agenda, but the over testing of pupils to asses teachers and the ranking of schools. (Because the Right-wing did not trust teachers to do their job)

So now pupils are coached through high stakes exams whose results are used to rank schools. These ranking give no actual insight into the teaching standards at the school, but schools are so pressured to do well in them that pupils in years 6 and 9 do no new work but instead spend the whole year prepping for SATs exams.

One school which I shall not name had a wonderful reputation in our local area because of it's standings in the league tables. I agreed to do 2 weeks supply work there thinking it would be a pleasant experience. It is one of the few schools I have walked out of because of the behaviour of the pupils. I refused to go back after 1 week there. So how to do you explain their wonderful league table standings? It was because they didn't enter pupils for exams who weren't going to do well.

3 Rs? Bollox. That is an oversimplification and doesn't in any way tackle the many problems with the current education system.

How about looking after the teachers so that they don't quit and leave the profession after 3 years (the average career length of a UK trained teacher).

How about supporting families so that the pupils don't come in so stressed about what is going on outside school that they can't possibly concentrate on their studies.

How about dealing with the appalling eating habits of the students. A can of Coke is not a nutritional breakfast (those of them that bother to have breakfast)

How about dealing with pupils staying up until 3 or 4 in the morning playing video games or chatting on the internet?

How about less pupil testing and less paperwork for teachers.

How about reducing the work load so teachers don't have to work a 50 hour week in order to get everything done (god help teachers with young families. As my colleague used to say "No child left behind but your own")

How about dealing with bullying management (the managers only passing down the bullying they themselves receive from the government)

How about stop hammering teachers and give them back some respect in society. How on earth do you expect to get support from parents when the media and the government keeps blaming teachers for the problems. Are you aware of how many teachers get threatened and screamed at by angry parents because they dared to tell off little Billy for not handing in his homework?

The list could go on. This simple idea that there is simply something wrong with the curriculum is a chimera. The standard of teaching these days is amazing. I wish teachers had taught me the way that kids are taught today.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Sirius, it was your post of a Daily Mail article and Chris's comment about "looney lefty" practices that started my line of questioning about administrations in place when today's teachers were being taught.

Bobby, you are right to pick up on that. The standards in education have dropped during the Thatcher years. As I said earlier, this is mainly because of the over use of high-stakes standardised testing.

Also the privatisation of the exam boards has not helped matters.

---

Reality Internet Personality

You are old enough to remember the Grammar School system. It would have been well and good for people like me who would have passed the 11+ (I passed the later equivalent) but is segregating people according to class and ability what we really want to go back to?

Let me point out before anybody thinks differently, I did not attend a grammar school. (But that is a long story.)

Grammar schools did not select by class. They sorted by ability and as such enabled children of ability no matter what there background to get an education that matched their ability.

In some cases, due to circumstances, (usually read parents,) some of the poorer children were not able to fully take advantage of these gifts.

That is not saying the system didn't need reforming, but the end result of comprehensives in 99% of cases, just threw away the best bits and dumbed down the education standards to that of the masses.

The BBC program on Grammar schools, co-incidentally re-run on Tuesday evening, had interviews with Michael Wood, Edwina Currie and Michael Portillo and others that agree with my view. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019c88d/The_Grammar_School_A_Secret_History_Episode_2/ Pity you cannot see it.

You are old enough to remember the Grammar School system. It would have been well and good for people like me who would have passed the 11+ (I passed the later equivalent) but is segregating people according to class and ability what we really want to go back to?

Let me point out before anybody thinks differently, I did not attend a grammar school. (But that is a long story.)

Grammar schools did not select by class. They sorted by ability and as such enabled children of ability no matter what there background to get an education that matched their ability.

Actually, you will find that a disproportionate amount of upper to middle class children ended up in the grammer school system because these children were already advantaged enough and could read, had support at home and in some cases tutored to pass the entrance exam.

I am not sure if you are also aware that there were different pass marks for girls and boys to ensure that the grammar schools did not become 'overburdened' with female students.

So much for being sorted by ability. ;)

In some cases, due to circumstances, (usually read parents,) some of the poorer children were not able to fully take advantage of these gifts.

That is not saying the system didn't need reforming, but the end result of comprehensives in 99% of cases, just threw away the best bits and dumbed down the education standards to that of the masses.

The BBC program on Grammar schools, co-incidentally re-run on Tuesday evening, had interviews with Michael Wood, Edwina Currie and Michael Portillo and others that agree with my view. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019c88d/The_Grammar_School_A_Secret_History_Episode_2/ Pity you cannot see it.

The opinions of Edwina Currie (Former Tory MP and the lady that told old age pensioners to go and buy thermal vests from Harrods if they couldn't afford their heating bills) and Michael Portillo (Former Tory MP) are hardly going to be neutral on the topic.

All 3 of these people went to Grammar schools.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Now this could work....Get rid of all the current labels, i.e., grammar,comprehensive, public,private, etc, etc. & have the following......

Primary Schools - All attend & at age 11...

Want to a Fireman//Copper/Teacher then go to Public Service Schools
Want to join the forces then off to Military Schools
Doctor/Nurse then Medicial Schools
Businessman/Executive, then off to Business Schools
Engineer/Programmer etc then off to Technical Schools

& so on down the list....

& last but not least, want to be a politician..then off to "Approved Schools", as politicians are always recommending them... :)

---

Funny you should think more boys than girls went to grammar schools. In my fathers home town, the girls grammar school had 30% more pupils than the boys.

And where I live now there is still a grammar school, founded in 16th century, and apparently since going co-ed in the early years of the 20th century prides itself on having equal numbers.

And the Grammar school my mother and her sister both won scholarships to in the 1930's has always been co-ed. It celebrates it's 500th this year and was founded by a Lady.

Now this could work....Get rid of all the current labels, i.e., grammar,comprehensive, public,private, etc, etc. & have the following......

Primary Schools - All attend & at age 11...

Want to a Fireman//Copper/Teacher then go to Public Service Schools
Want to join the forces then off to Military Schools
Doctor/Nurse then Medicial Schools
Businessman/Executive, then off to Business Schools
Engineer/Programmer etc then off to Technical Schools

& so on down the list....

& last but not least, want to be a politician..then off to "Approved Schools", as politicians are always recommending them... :)

We do have schools supposed linked to "themes" like sports, drama or science Academies, but the pupils cannot choose which to go to the LEA just puts the pupils in the nearest school, most of the time.

We do have schools supposed linked to "themes" like sports, drama or science Academies, but the pupils cannot choose which to go to the LEA just puts the pupils in the nearest school, most of the time.

..so when the wrong kids in the wrong schools rebel, just blame the parents and/or teachers! Hmmmph, methinks time the LEA's were disposed of.

---

Funny you should think more boys than girls went to grammar schools.

I don't.

Re-read what I wrote:

... there were different pass marks for girls and boys to ensure that the grammar schools did not become 'overburdened' with female students.

The idea was to ensure that in general there were equal numbers of boys and girls. I am sure though that in some places there were schools with either more boys or more girls depending on the demographics of the area.

Girls tended to perform better at the 11+ exams than boys.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Absolutely Excelent post. Well done Chris. Agree with you 100%.

---

Funny you should think more boys than girls went to grammar schools.

I don't.

Re-read what I wrote:

... there were different pass marks for girls and boys to ensure that the grammar schools did not become 'overburdened' with female students.

The idea was to ensure that in general there were equal numbers of boys and girls. I am sure though that in some places there were schools with either more boys or more girls depending on the demographics of the area.

Girls tended to perform better at the 11+ exams than boys.

I apologise I did read your bit wrongly.

BUT, when you look at the overall scores, tables or graphs it appears girls are doing better that boys, why is that boys do better in the "offical" hard subjects, by quite a distance.

Is it that girls choose the easy subjects?

A genuine thankyou! :-)

implying that all previous ones were not? Tch,tch tch, & from a teacher of all things.

---

Ouch, hope you have a hard hat :-))

Girls from 13 to 16 are considerably more grown up and intellectually capable than boys of the same age. Any girl could do woodwork or metalwork if she was taught how to. From 18 onwards the balance tends top adjust 50/50. You are straying into stereotype territory here young man!

I was reading a report by the Institute of Physics,

David Sandford-Smith, head of pre-19 education at the Institute of Physics, called for Ofqual, the new exams regulatory body, to audit A-levels annually to assess differences between subjects.

The hardestCHEMISTRY 0.96PHYSICS 0.95GENSTUDIES 0.87BIOLOGY 0.81MATHS 0.52FRENCH 0.51GERMAN 0.50HISTORY 0.24

The easiestFILM STUDIES -1.79MEDIA -1.00PHOTOGRAPHY -0.82DRAMA -0.70ENG LANG -0.43ENGLISH -0.43ENG LIT -0.30GEOGRAPHY -0.13

And if you look at which students do and get good grades in the hardest subject, the majority are boys. Even in general studies the results are just about equal for both sexes. Girls do slightly better at Maths but that is a mid grade subject, and the majority who study the easist subjects are girls by a long way.

So my reading is the fact that we read many times each year when the results are announced that girls are better than boys because the majority with lots of A's and A*'s are girls it's probably because the girls do the easy subjects and the boys do the sciences.

Ouch, hope you have a hard hat :-))

Girls from 13 to 16 are considerably more grown up and intellectually capable than boys of the same age. Any girl could do woodwork or metalwork if she was taught how to. From 18 onwards the balance tends top adjust 50/50. You are straying into stereotype territory here young man!

I was reading a report by the Institute of Physics,

David Sandford-Smith, head of pre-19 education at the Institute of Physics, called for Ofqual, the new exams regulatory body, to audit A-levels annually to assess differences between subjects.

The hardestCHEMISTRY 0.96PHYSICS 0.95GENSTUDIES 0.87BIOLOGY 0.81MATHS 0.52FRENCH 0.51GERMAN 0.50HISTORY 0.24

The easiestFILM STUDIES -1.79MEDIA -1.00PHOTOGRAPHY -0.82DRAMA -0.70ENG LANG -0.43ENGLISH -0.43ENG LIT -0.30GEOGRAPHY -0.13

And if you look at which students do and get good grades in the hardest subject, the majority are boys. Even in general studies the results are just about equal for both sexes. Girls do slightly better at Maths but that is a mid grade subject, and the majority who study the easist subjects are girls by a long way.

So my reading is the fact that we read many times each year when the results are announced that girls are better than boys because the majority with lots of A's and A*'s are girls it's probably because the girls do the easy subjects and the boys do the sciences.

Girls do tend to steer away from the hard sciences. I have no idea why, but I suspect it is still to do with gender stereotypes. I've taught physics to both Girls and Boys at A level and find there are some differences about how they approach the subject that have little to do with actual ability and more about self assurance and confidence.

When I put out an experiment the boys tend to go at it, playing with the equipment, making guesses and being quite prepared to make mistakes. Girls tend to hold back and getting them to attempt practical work was sometimes like drawing teeth. They tended to take a more a passive approach and I had to "retrain" them to get them to participate in the fun stuff. I had more success with girls in girls only classes. In mixed classes they tend to allow the boys to dominate.

There are lots of theories as to why girls and boys behave differently, my experiences are purely anecdotal, but I have observed no difference in ability to grasp concepts and do the math.

There is still a perception that physics, computing, science (not so much math anymore) are boys subjects and girls steer away from them for simply that reason. Girls are taught to be different from a young age right from the moment they are put in pink and taken down the Barbie aisle at Toys R Us. It's all a nonsense.

Perhaps they should start making pink and sparkly capacitors and electron guns etc for use in lessons?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Never understood why they went modular in the first place, unless it was from the teachers who knew it was a way to boost passes.

A-level modules 'to be axed' in major exams shake-up

Not strictly Education but it did get me thinking about Ess's question "what is education for".
Happiness is a glass half empty

Why did you drop the last sentence from the quoted paragraph "But she mastered the job and was toughened by the experience", and why not provide its source?

Oh dear we are being Mr. Picky today aren't we. She might have been a good Prime Minister but she will be forever remembered as "Thatcher the milk snatcher" for her time as Education Secretary, and I don't think she did a particularly good job in that role. And no, before you ask, I'm not going to quote you chapter and verse as to why.

I'm just waiting for your Freudian slip - "Why? because you sez so?" then I will know it's Rush back under a nom de plume.

LOL. That's funny. Rush & Bobby e-mail me from different accounts. Rush/Bobby, has u been messin' wit my head? :)
Besides, Rush is clearly a libertarian, and Bobby well to the left of that.

The progressive system you are decrying was based on child centered learning. However, what has cause the death of standards is not the "loonie left" agenda, but the over testing of pupils to asses teachers and the ranking of schools. (Because the Right-wing did not trust teachers to do their job)

Right on, sister! Preach it! In the US, we have ... you guessed it .. .Laira Bush! ... to thank for that.

Thousands of children from dysfunctional homes should be taken from their families and put in boarding schools, the head of Ofsted claimed yesterday. Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief inspector of schools, said drastic intervention was needed to help youngsters whose futures were being blighted by their parents’ low expectations and chaotic lifestyles.

He warned that too many pupils were coming to school from an ‘anti-learning culture’ amid a ‘backdrop of lost standards, values and ambitions’. The problem was being compounded by parents failing to enforce boundaries and absent fathers in particular who, he said, should be condemned by society for their failure to support their children. Fathers needed to see raising their children as the ‘right and manly’ thing to do.

He seems at last to be be beginning to understand some of the problems, but I'm not sure this would work.

Boarding school?

Might work for some of the single, non-caring parents, they could offset the costs by removing child, council tax and housing benefits. And then the parent could work because they would not have excuses.

Actually I think that maybe some singe parent units often care more than some two parent units. But we need to be careful here.

OK, problem child gets sent to boarding school, problem parent that caused that loses benefits. Problem parent still can't be bothered to work, problem parent drifts into petty crime and drugs to survive. Problem child gets rehabilitated, returns home to a worse situation than before, and goes of the rails again. Could be a vicious circle and a downward spiral.

If we had a Social Services that could effectively monitor all that it might be different. But as we all know what we have is an organisation that year after year, sees vulnerable children abused and losing their lives due to sheer incompetence. Half the problem is the people that drift into social work, being the only job they could get, and the Social being desperate to take on anybody.

But that is another issue for another thread. I'm just not convinced that boarding school and segregation is the answer.

Another fine post. However, I have one issue with it - I've been stating that, only to get knocked down....duplicity at work here?

---

Another fine post. However, I have one issue with it - I've been stating that, only to get knocked down....duplicity at work here?

No not at all. I have been defending politicians, not social services ...who act on the laws. rules & regulations that their political masters put in place. Nice one Cyril

---