Youngsters Employment ?

[Zuiko]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

Sorry folks, I have been busy with tea.

Now, to get back to business; the mistake, I believe, is to put Grammar schools above Technical schools or vice versa. Both have their merits, and both have their place in the education system. Plumbers and electricians are more important than lawyers in my book. Without builders we would have nowhere to live, and without good gas fitters the medical profession and undertakers would be overwhelmed with work!

If there had been a mechanical aptitude test to get into a Technical school I suspect there would have been a lot less carping about the inequalities of the Grammar school system. The fact that children had to pass the 11+ to get into Grammar school was probably their undoing.

However, we also need to remember that 50 years ago it didn't matter too much if a lot of children left school illiterate and innumerate, as there was a ready supply of labouring jobs on the land, in mines, mills and other industries where literacy and numeracy were not required.

Roll on 50 years and most of those jobs have gone. The need for a good education system for ALL is therefore far more important now than ever before.

Just one final point; we often look to other countries and envy their education systems and their schools, and wonder why ours aren't as good. The reason is one I have touched on above; that for centuries we have had a ready supply of labouring jobs on the land and in mills, so there was never any real need for the majority to be well educated.

Contrast that with a country like Ireland which has comparatively few natural resources, and whose land is less ideal for farming than our own. Ireland produces a disproportionately high number of scientists, medics and academics simply because education was the only way out of poverty for most.

Hi Nigel,

It's certainly true that education needs to adapt to the new requirements of a changing world. With this in mind there is no point looking back to a system that may or may not have served us well fifty years ago. We need to look forward, adopt a new approach and adapt the best practices from other countries that are ahead of us in the evolution of their own education systems to suit our own needs.

[Jim Ford]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

Maybe Jim's daughter's particular school did give her the quality of education needed to enable her to go on and get that degree!

Exactly - I would have thought it obvious to Ulfric from my initial post!

Jim

[Jim Ford]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

BTW, those that consider the Comprehensive System to be so bad need to remember that it was introduced by those that were products of the Grammar + Secondary Modern System!

Jim

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

BTW, those that consider the Comprehensive System to be so bad need to remember that it was introduced by those that were products of the Grammar + Secondary Modern System!

Jim

The question is Jim; was the comprehensive system introduced to improve education, to banish the inequalities of the old two tier system, or to save money?

Our politicians would have us believe it was for the first two reasons; however, being a cynic and a realist I strongly suspect the latter.

[OM USer]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

The "inequalities" in the grammar school system are hard to measure. Undoubtably grammar schools excel in turning out highly academically gifted pupils. But what of the comprehensives? Removing the brightest will obviously affect the average achievement of the school overall but does this matter and will it consign the rest who didn't passs the 11+ to a poor education?

My thoughts are that the biggest problem is teaching in a mixed ability class. The teachers are the same, did the same exams when they were at school, further educated at same universities, and belong to the same union. Teaching should be no different at comprehensives than it is at grammar schools. If the teaching is different then address it! That's not the fault of the grammar schools. Grammar school selection is just setting by ability and teaching those in that top set in a different classroom.

Some people did well by comprehensives and thats good and how it should be. For those to whom it didn't do well think about the reasons. Why couldn't the teacher motivate you? Was the standard of teaching being dragged down by those who didn't want to learn? Were your lessons disrupted by others. Selection should be by willingness to learn as well as ability; and achievement (at 11+ and in later exams) is often the result of both.

Homework. In an effort not to disadvantage and discourage the slower members in a class some (most?) comprehensives do not set homework. Grammar schools and independents set their pupils 2 to 3 hours a night... and follow up if its not done. No wonder there is a difference at the end. Put the brightest pupils at a comprehensive school in their own set. Give them 2 to 3 hours of homework per night even if you give less to lower ability sets. Above all, let the pupils themselves decide how much hard work they want to put in and teach them in an environment that encourages hard work if they choose to do so.

There will always be those who choose an easy route and choose not to work hard. Don't let them influence and disrupt those who think differently. Educate them as to their choices... and if enlightenment or achievement eventually happens be prepared to move them to an environment where they can progress further.

[now for nice cup of tea and a chance to relax]

[Chevvyf1]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

The "inequalities" in the grammar school system are hard to measure. Undoubtably grammar schools excel in turning out highly academically gifted pupils. But what of the comprehensives? Removing the brightest will obviously affect the average achievement of the school overall but does this matter and will it consign the rest who didn't passs the 11+ to a poor education?

My thoughts are that the biggest problem is teaching in a mixed ability class. The teachers are the same, did the same exams when they were at school, further educated at same universities, and belong to the same union. Teaching should be no different at comprehensives than it is at grammar schools. If the teaching is different then address it! That's not the fault of the grammar schools. Grammar school selection is just setting by ability and teaching those in that top set in a different classroom.

Some people did well by comprehensives and thats good and how it should be. For those to whom it didn't do well think about the reasons. Why couldn't the teacher motivate you? Was the standard of teaching being dragged down by those who didn't want to learn? Were your lessons disrupted by others. Selection should be by willingness to learn as well as ability; and achievement (at 11+ and in later exams) is often the result of both.

Homework. In an effort not to disadvantage and discourage the slower members in a class some (most?) comprehensives do not set homework. Grammar schools and independents set their pupils 2 to 3 hours a night... and follow up if its not done. No wonder there is a difference at the end. Put the brightest pupils at a comprehensive school in their own set. Give them 2 to 3 hours of homework per night even if you give less to lower ability sets. Above all, let the pupils themselves decide how much hard work they want to put in and teach them in an environment that encourages hard work if they choose to do so.

There will always be those who choose an easy route and choose not to work hard. Don't let them influence and disrupt those who think differently. Educate them as to their choices... and if enlightenment or achievement eventually happens be prepared to move them to an environment where they can progress further.

[now for nice cup of tea and a chance to relax]

Interesting points here

I was at Convent Schools and there were many "not interested in lessons" - A few of us did enjoy lessons; learning an home study too - BUT the Teacher can only go as "fast as the slowest student"


Many children then and NOW have Parents who "do not believe in homework-as their childs' done a long day at school" BUT Homework and parental Support makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE to a childs' outcome


I do believe it is the community within and surrounding a school, which make it or break it - Money Talks with the Independent and Grammer Schools because those Parents are less likely to "come in and listen a class read 1-2-1" because the Parents are busy at work (be it office for the dad or lunch for the mum )

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

Interesting points here
I do believe it is the community within and surrounding a school, which make it or break it - Money Talks with the Independent and Grammer Schools because those Parents are less likely to "come in and listen a class read 1-2-1" because the Parents are busy at work (be it office for the dad or lunch for the mum )

[sapper]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

Many "phony" Degrees were created to "reduce the unemployment figures by the Labour Govt and now the problems have caught up ? or not ?[/QUOTE]

Sorry to be party political Chevvy but it was the conservatives under Mrs Thatcher that introduced
'phony' degrees when they opened up polytechnics to do degrees.

[sapper]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

With respect, we don't need to tinker with it or experiment.

Britain had the best education system in the world, bar none, until governments of both colours started meddling in the 1960's and 70's.

Grammar schools provided excellent opportunities and 'social mobility' for those who were academically inclined, whilst the 'Technical' schools catered for those with more practical abilities.

Grammar schools were scrapped in the interests of political correctness, (and no doubt to save money), selection went out of the window, and all children were sent to mediocre 'comprehensives' where education was geared to the lowest common denominator and excellence of any kind was frowned upon - with the possible exception of sport.

The better public schools are now the last bastion of hope for those who can afford it, whilst the majority do what they can to get their offspring into a church school or academy.

The irony of this story is that Grammar schools would actually have been much better suited to equipping our children for a life of [post industrial] work in the 21st century than the comprehensives that replaced them.

Of course some politicians would abolish public schools as well, and I believe it is they who have caused much of the damage to our education system.

Agreed. Not so long ago, only a few folk got degrees but the country led the world in manufacturing. I think of folk like Alan Sugar amb Duncan Banantyne, , no formal degree but both have very successful businesses.

[Chevvyf1]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

... Contrary to what we are told it doesn't cost any more for a teacher to teach well than to teach badly, and it doesn't cost more to motivate than it costs to demotivate.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE in

* lost opportunity for each child taught badly ;
* each child demotivated by Teachers/School ;
* each child not able to achieve economic independence
* each child who suffers mental & physical health problems

all as a result thereof

[Chevvyf1]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

Agreed. Not so long ago, only a few folk got degrees but the country led the world in manufacturing. I think of folk like Alan Sugar amb Duncan Banantyne, , no formal degree but both have very successful businesses.

and The Stock Exchange of London was largely Traded by "Barrow Boys" that is those without an Educational Degree - but a 1st Class Honours Degree in LIFE AND it was the BAD BOYS with the Degrees (vis Barings crash who LED and PERMITTED the "Nick Leesons' et al to overtrade)

Same happened with the USA Mortgage farce of overtrading which bought about the downfall of our UK BANKS - all led by the Degree educated thieving cheats - who "bet" that the UK Banks would buy these "wraps" of duff investments

going for a cold shower ...

[Chevvyf1]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

There are World Leading Nations who have and invested many, many years ago in "Degree Education" Germany for one and Japan (the latter is an island of rock with NO MINERAL wealth at all - ok maybe an area for producing "dirty water/radioactive isotopes" )

BOTH Countries have led the world - Both Countries were absolutely on their knees after the two World Wars and look where we are - in relation to them - NOW ?

[Wally]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

This thread gets better as it progresses. The various points being raised show first hand experience the failures of the system. The 'tinkering' as some call it is perhaps the crux of the matter. Many of our so called betters have never actually had to work through the education system at it most basic levels. As I mentioned earlier, not everyone has parents sufficiently wealthy to afford their children the best start in life.

From what I'm reading here, in the main, the system is broken and will remain so for some time to come. In the IT world, the acronym GIGO I think, sums up the educational system as it is. Our so-called betters are trying to create a system that suits the needs of the few rather than the needs of the many. We all can't be politicians even though the pay is great and the perks even better, or solicitors or con artists / *ankers working in gambling casino's with BANK on the front door, again with ridiculous salaries, perks and even more obscene bonuses.

As Nigel pointed out, we had a world class system that fulfilled both needs, those that had the acumen to further their education from ALL walks of life had the opportunity to do so. Those not so academically inclined could at least go into 'job training', also known as apprenticeships, thus giving us the best of both worlds.

Perhaps it's time to go back to such old fashioned basics, the 3 r's etc. Old hat it may be, but at least it worked, Best of all was that it gave everyone regardless of ability the incentive to succeed without incurring huge financial debt. As a tax payer this for me was a far better option. Spend dosh on real education rather than as now spending billions on expanding upon something that is broken.

The current system has practically removed that incentive, except for a few. Get a degree and you stand a better chance of getting a job or should that read career? For those not so fortunate, what does their future hold??? In a nutshell, the armed forces had it pinned down to N A A F I = No Ambition And F***-all Interest, which just about sums up much of today's yoof.

Of course, if you are as thick as two planks, lack commons sense, have poor moral standards, lie, steal and cheat and, are prepared to make statements in public that contradict personal actions, get handsomely rewarded for global cock-ups then, there still remains a glimmer of hope. Get a part-time job as a politician, no formal qualifications required other than an ability to selling snake oil products to a captive audience.

PS: Next time around... vote for The Monster Raving Loony Party, at least they are honest and upfront and we will all know that we really do have the inmates running the asylum.

Now I really do feel an awful lot better.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

Many "phony" Degrees were created to "reduce the unemployment figures by the Labour Govt and now the problems have caught up ? or not ?

Sorry to be party political Chevvy but it was the conservatives under Mrs Thatcher that introduced
'phony' degrees when they opened up polytechnics to do degrees.

Such degrees are not new. They were previously offered by technical colleges, and were equally valued then. My own father, for example studied for a degree in chemistry whilst on day release from Beckon Cokeworks. (See the threads about making coal gas on this forum.)

For my sins I lecture in Marine Engineering at one such 'red brick' university. I would say this is an entirely worthwhile subject, and one which actually brings a lot of business to this country.

[sapper]

Re: Youngsters Employment ?

Nigel, I don't decry any degree, from red brick or not. My comment really was to 'correct', so I thought, the thinking that it was the Labour gov that introduced 'phony' degrees. And in my book, a degree is a degree, no matter what is studied, law or golf course design.