Y A-B - "the right has crushed the left"

[KeyboardJockey]

nice contradiction in their tho Stoat Boy - the abolition of grammar schools was one of, possibly the main factor in increasing social mobility. Compehensive education was an absolute boon to the working-class

Grammar schools rescused some but condemned others. The tripartite system could have worked if there was a) more resources put into the sec moderns and the technical schools and b) there was a way of transferring between schools as some children mature at different rates.

The comp system suffered from an obsession with equality / social engineering at the expense of vigor. The comp system that I went through still had vestiges of the old system within it and I felt that I was given a much better grounding in learning how to learn than children have now.

I don't think the comprehensive system has been an unalloyed sucess but then neither is it a total disaster either. I'm glad the 11+ has gone though.

 

[weltweit]

YAB "The right has crushed the left"

No, more like - the left has dropped the ball whilst left to its own devices.

The right hasn't even got any policies yet, how can they have crushed anything, they were as suprised as anyone at the swing to the right in polls and local election results.

No the left has done this to themselves, the right was being quiet and unobtrusive at the time.

 

[poster342002]

No, more like - the left has dropped the ball whilst left to its own devices.

The right hasn't even got any policies yet, how can they have crushed anything, they were as suprised as anyone at the swing to the right in polls and local election results.

No the left has done this to themselves, the right was being quiet and unobtrusive at the time.

I think there's a fair bit of truth in this. The collossol own-goals of the left in recent years have been utterly staggering in their stupidity and naivety.

 

[treelover]

again bit confused here, the left is not in power, though of course through the STWC, the far left are quite visible, but power , no. They could of course have influenced politics over the NL years: today in the Guardian, there is an article that pensioners and disabled are choosing between going hungry or paying for social care, that would be a cause worth fighting for, instead, its yet another 'unity' march' in London, priorities?

 

[Fruitloop]

What unity march? Unity with what?

 

[belboid]

I guess he means the UAF anti-BNP march on june 21st - tho why anyone would want to propose a binary opposition between that and any other event, gawd only knows

 

[Das Uberdog]

As somebody who comes from what was a solid Left wing background but who views himself as a solid Conservative now I can only tell you what caused my familiy loyalties to shift and that seemed to be a sense that the left no longer seemed concerned with people being able to better themselves but rather trying to keep them down.

Grammar schools were feckin' awful - but getting rid of them defeats the object unless we also get rid of setting, over-testing and all the other forms of academic segregation which are rife in comps.

Your set 4s might as well not turn up for school, and they know it. They're not even allowed to sit the same exams as the top sets. My best mate went to a school with 8 sets - 8 sets! Anyone from 3 downwards was already considered a failure... first priority on school trips and classroom equipment goes to whom?

 

[Stoat Boy]

Grammar schools rescused some but condemned others. The tripartite system could have worked if there was a) more resources put into the sec moderns and the technical schools and b) there was a way of transferring between schools as some children mature at different rates.

The comp system suffered from an obsession with equality / social engineering at the expense of vigor. The comp system that I went through still had vestiges of the old system within it and I felt that I was given a much better grounding in learning how to learn than children have now.

I don't think the comprehensive system has been an unalloyed sucess but then neither is it a total disaster either. I'm glad the 11+ has gone though.

Well I do not have the stats to hand and I am sure that both sides of the arguement could be put forward by opposing sides of the debate but I think the important part is that the abolition of the Grammer School system in many areas led to a perception, which has been magnifyed by the stunning hypocrisy of many on the left who either implemented the changes or supported them but then did not send thier own kids to the new Comps, that Labour took away one of the genuine routes out for poorer working class kids and as such is one of the reasons why the left has been failing over the last few decades.

It seems to have abandoned the notion of aspirations and replaced it with ideology which just expects people to stay piegon holed. Even in the piece that the thread starts with Y-AB talks about black people being Uncle Toms because they support the Conservative Party and she is a prime example of the sort of hypocrisy that makes many just dismiss the left.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Grammar schools were feckin' awful - but getting rid of them defeats the object unless we also get rid of setting, over-testing and all the other forms of academic segregation which are rife in comps.

But what is wrong with academic segregation ? Why should kids who are bright be forced to get educated at the pace of other kids who are not academically inclined ?

The world of employment is segregated based on ability. Thats a simple fact and nothing will ever change that. So how does it help anybody by trying to pretend that education should not be the same ?

Now in terms of what I would do with education I am probably more inclined to go with the extreme left view point of abolishing all private and faith based education and making everybody part of one single education system because I feel that every kids really does have a right to be educated to the highest standard possible but with this obsession with comprehensive education amongst many on the left means that its never going to garner wide spread support.

People are aspirational and need methods of governance that not only acknolwedge this but also provide a real frame work for those aspirations to be achieved.

 

[belboid]

Well I do not have the stats to hand and I am sure that both sides of the arguement could be put forward by opposing sides of the debate but I think the important part is that the abolition of the Grammer School system in many areas led to a perception, which has been magnifyed by the stunning hypocrisy of many on the left who either implemented the changes or supported them but then did not send thier own kids to the new Comps, that Labour took away one of the genuine routes out for poorer working class kids and as such is one of the reasons why the left has been failing over the last few decades.

utter rubbish and completely ahistorical, almost completely at odds with the facts, in fact

 

[Stoat Boy]

utter rubbish and completely ahistorical, almost completely at odds with the facts, in fact

Well I can only write as I have experienced and I would have that thought that since I come from what had been previously a solid labour voting working class background but now one in which everybody votes Conservative you lefties might be interested in what caused this.

Still you lefties know best.

 

[audiotech]

Well I can only write as I have experienced and I would have that thought that since I come from what had been previously a solid labour voting working class background but now one in which everybody votes Conservative you lefties might be interested in what caused this.

Still you lefties know best.

Another, dumb, fucking, troll, bullshitter. Pull the other one with your crap about coming from a 'solid working class background'. You boy are a right-wing shyster.

 

[dennisr]

People are aspirational and need methods of governance that not only acknolwedge this but also provide a real frame work for those aspirations to be achieved.

The problem is Stout, that you confuse genuine competition based on ability with the inevitable grading of young children based on the assumptions and prejudices of those setting the exams etc.

You see that educational seperation - in terms of faith schools or posh kids having 'mummy and daddy' pay for their privilege is not right. You can see that public schools who still give a huge advantage to their pupils (intelligent or not) to getting on to university for example. These pupils are trained and groomed to expect a dispropotunate number of HE places - not because they are all in some way brighter than working class lads like you or me. Yet you are arguing for another set of grades for the plebs (ironically - you and me would have been less likely to make it into a grammar school than fancier folk up the road) - another way of teaching working class kids their 'station in life'

But how do you decide who gets into the academic school (the grammar) and who gets into the factory fodder school (secondary modern) with a load of youngsters who are still forming? and who decides? on who's terms what is academically better?

Ironically New Labour are with you on testing and re-testing young kids continually to the point of idiocy - we virtually have the decisions being made as to who is a 'failure' and who is a 'success' at the moment

This is the myth -that letting the 'brighter kids' go to a different school stops them being held back by the 'thickies' -the reality is different. It is not about allowing children to reach the best of their differing abilities it was about legitimising the idea of 'middle class' superiority (and incomes), legitimising the 'failure' of those only deemed capable of manual work (as though such people are not intelligent, and about re-creating the next generation of workforce.

The problem they have now is - they don't need a skilled manual workforce, virtually at all, so what would the present day equivlent of a secondary modern be doing - training people for mac-jobs (rather than allowing them to become all 'uppity' and get ideas 'above their station' such as future university etc)?

I'm all for people getting a genuine chance at developing their different abilities (and I mean that not in terms of some learning they are 'more intelligent' while others learn to 'fail') - genuine competition on an equal plying field.

At the same time I think that developing a well rounded out young adult is easier if one of the skills they learn is being able to mix with other kids who may not be like then - not be kept away from them - in the same way my sights were raised by seeing that I could be 'as good as' these folk at school at my comprehensive (in the very tory area I come from).

As usual with old style tory crap about the good old days of grammar schools - the reality behind what they actually aim to do is somewhat different - 'choice' and 'ability' - my arse - New Labour are your new tories anyway you should be voting for them Stout if you want an elitist system - they are your people. Have you ever wondered why - when the health service is collaping, schools are, in effect being flogged off on the cheap, house prices are destroying real peoples real change of ever making the choice of a secure roof over their heads and basic food staples are going up at a rate of knots, banks are busy creaming tax payers money after gambling on the stock market etc etc that some fools only find time to ming on about a dead 'idea' such as grammer schools as if it has any relevance to our lives or our ability to make genuine 'choices' based on our genuine 'abilities'.

Streaming children is no answer to letting those children develop equally/fairly to the best of their abilities. it destroys 'aspirations' - it teaches kids to fail. Decent funding, proper training, stopping the continuois testing of both children and teachers (to the extent those teachers spend more time getting exam passes passed than actually teaching children) are a step in the right direction.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Another, dumb, fucking, troll, bullshitter. Pull the other one with your crap about coming from a 'solid working class background'. You boy are a right-wing shyster.

I dont disagree with the right-wing shyster bit ( rather proud of it in fact) but I do come from a solid working class background abliet one at the upper echelons of what could be construed as working class in that my family were all skilled people with very definite trades and that those we mixed with came from similar backgrounds. Now I dont say this with any great pride or shame, just stating it as a matter of fact.

As to those of you putting the case forward for comprehensive education, what you seem to be missing out is that I am stressing that the perception of many working class people was that grammer schools did offer a genuine leg up the ladder for people from a poorer background. If the case was different, and I am sure the debate has been done on here a lot of times, then the results are not seemingly obvious at least to me.

And that these being abolished in working class areas did lead to people turning their backs on the left/old Labour. This was not helped by the hyprocrisy of many of the leadership of the left who promoted the change whilst still sending thier own kids into selective education. For me this is just a simple statement of fact.

 

[audiotech]

I dont disagree with the right-wing shyster bit ( rather proud of it in fact) but I do come from a solid working class background abliet one at the upper echelons..

Management.

 

[Das Uberdog]

... my family were all skilled people with very definite trades and that those we mixed with came from similar backgrounds.

But what is wrong with academic segregation ?

The world of employment is segregated based on ability.

These two quotes go hand in hand with one another, because they push forward the common perception that education is (and indeed, should be) about building up and training a workforce. Essentially, schools should be an arm of business - enforcing the discipline and experience with hierarchy which studets will have to enforce in later life, whilst making subjects like 'IT' and 'Business Studies' (both the biggest corck of shites I've ever had to endure in my life) compulsory studies...

This, in effect, is a socialist analysis of the manner in which a mass education system works under capitalism. However, this very principle undermines the entire basis of academia - the freedom of study, a pursuit of worldly knowledge and an expansion of our understandings of what it means to exist as human beings. Without education, we are powerless. Without an understanding of our past, the nature of mankind, the nature of politics and society, what hope have we of making sense of our own lives to any satisfying degree? Education in its essence should be a basic human right - essential for any society which tries to denote any semblence of 'equality' or democracy. Yet most people exist today without an education in its true sense - a fact which serves to undermine their role not only as human beings but also as political functionaries in our society. Such a docile role is, in essence, exactly what is prescribed by those who administer our education system.

Of what 'relevence' is someone's ability in a certain topic of study, if they wish to study it? In absolute terms, it is of no relevence. In a system which exists to 'grade' people and constantly 'assess' them in terms of their supposed 'capability' (an impossibly indefinite premise upon which to base their 'tests', I might add...) it reigns supreme over all over considerations - for obvious reasons.

Testing catalyses a disinterest in proper education. Show me a classroom of primary school age children before SATs and show me just one who is showing a disdain for the pursuit of worldly knowledge. Their disinterest in the world is bred by their categorisation into 'failures', 'moderates' and 'successes'. Kids aren't stupid - they know when they're placed on the 'stupid' table. I was put on the 'stupid' table in maths from the age of 6 years old - 6 years old! All because Id switched schools and had missed being taught the time. That was a stigma which lasted with me 'til I was expelled from secondary school in year 10 and took my maths GCSE by myself, alone, and in a modular course got A*, A* (and then a D... coursework is uber ghay...).

Point is, I thought I was shit at maths. I wasn't, I just didn't respond well to maths in the classroom environment, in competition with my peers.

It may be the case that not all kids want to study academic subjects - and for some, the 'practicalisation' of academic subjects helps them to study. That doesn't mean turning a History degree into some practical qualification doesn't completely negate the entire basis of studying History, for any altruistic reason anyway...

For starters, there needs to be a clear distinction between subjects for which you can actually be practically assessed upon (Techs, 'Medicine', some sciences, etcetera) and those which are fundamentally untestable (and then some which fall inbetween - maths, some sciences, law, etcetera)... Secondly, such 'untestable' subjects need to be recognised for what they are. Not some training programme for a future career, but ultimately as incredibly broad and expansive studies into human consciousness and activity. What I'm talking about would mean a complete restructuring of the education system - but if we want education to actually mean anything, then as far as I can see, it's the only way forward.

 

[Cobbles]

"our London"

"US" presumably being the majority who voted Boris into power - no?

 

[nightbreed]

Well I can only write as I have experienced and I would have that thought that since I come from what had been previously a solid labour voting working class background but now one in which everybody votes Conservative you lefties might be interested in what caused this.

Still you lefties know best.

How about doing a bit more research and then come back with evidence to support your personal experience.

 

[nightbreed]

"our London"

"US" presumably being the majority who voted Boris into power - no?

The "US" will probably vote a new labour mayor next time. Thats what what happens when voters vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate especially when you have a choice of two tory candidates, one a Cameronite Tory and one a new labour 'Tory'

The differnce in policy can be minimal.

BTW I dont like Livingstone and Boris is a proven prick.

 

[Stoat Boy]

How about doing a bit more research and then come back with evidence to support your personal experience.

So do you think that abolishing Grammer schools led to an increase in support for the left from the working classes ?

For me this thread shows why the left has lost a lot of support from those who historically not only supported it but also created it. I am not argueing about the rights and wrongs of the education system but just putting forward my own experience of seeing a family go from being staunch Labour to voting any one but with the abolishing of the grammer school system being just one of the reasons why because of the perception such a move gave allied with rank hypocrisy from those charged with implementing it.

The switch of a large section of the working class vote from Labour to the Conservatives in the 80's has been the crucial factor in determining British politics ever since. It forced Labour to abandon clause 4 and effectively isolated the British left from any hope of real power. Yes they voted in Blair and did so on two more occassions but I dont think any of you who proclaim yourself as left wing want to take any credit for that, especially in light of your own opposition to the Iraq and Afghan wars.

But I think that many of you on the left enjoy being on the side-lines. I think you take a perverse pleasure in being able to sneer at the majority. I think it elevates you amongst your peers and whilst you do love a tasty little internal conflict or two I reckon you still all see yourselves as some exclusive little freemasonry of those who are brighter and more intelligent than the rest of us subservient little proles. You know best and all that.

 

[belboid]

Another fact free post! The working-class tory vote didn't increase significantly during the eighties, that is simply untrue.

As to your claim that there was a 'perception of many working class people was that grammer schools did offer a genuine leg up the ladder for people from a poorer background.' [my emphasis] - again, I contend it is nonsense. Yes there were a small number of working-class tories who thought that (including your parents I would guess) but that does not mean it was a widespread belief, there is no evidence whatsoever to support that. As it was overwhelmingly the working-classes who were written off by the tri-partite education system, it was also, unsurprisingly, the working-classes who were massively and overwhelmingly supportive of the introduction of comps. your claims are sheer rubbish.

And, I think you'll find they were called Grammar schools. Education today....

 

[Stoat Boy]

Another fact free post! The working-class tory vote didn't increase significantly during the eighties, that is simply untrue.

As to your claim that there was a 'perception of many working class people was that grammer schools did offer a genuine leg up the ladder for people from a poorer background.' [my emphasis] - again, I contend it is nonsense. Yes there were a small number of working-class tories who thought that (including your parents I would guess) but that does not mean it was a widespread belief, there is no evidence whatsoever to support that. As it was overwhelmingly the working-classes who were written off by the tri-partite education system, it was also, unsurprisingly, the working-classes who were massively and overwhelmingly supportive of the introduction of comps. your claims are sheer rubbish.

And, I think you'll find they were called Grammar schools. Education today....

Ok then, show me the proof that working class people were massively and overwhelmingly supportive of the introduction of comps. Show me how wrong I am.

 

[belboid]

you want 'proof' even tho you won't offer any? How quaint.

Read some books on the period, Social Class & The Comprehensive by Julienne Ford is good, iirr

 

[KeyboardJockey]

you want 'proof' even tho you won't offer any? How quaint.

Read some books on the period, Social Class & The Comprehensive by Julienne Ford is good, iirr

Belboid. I grew up politically at the start of Thatcherism and I saw loads of people in the middle and upper working class (skilled trades and self employed etc) shift to the tories after the winter of discontent.

There were more working class tories who voted for Thatcher in 79 than before. Also there was the feeling that a change was needed in some way. Sadly this desire for change landed us witih Thatcher.

 

[Fruitloop]

History repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce, eh?

 

[Stoat Boy]

you want 'proof' even tho you won't offer any? How quaint.

You are the one telling me I am completely wrong so why dont you tell me a little bit more about why ?

Your statement about 'the working-classes who were massively and overwhelmingly supportive of the introduction of comps' seems very definite and I would be interested to see what figures you use to qualify this.

 

[belboid]

I've given you a reference, which is more than you did. Very sorry that forty year old figures aren't prominently on the internet.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Very sorry that forty year old figures aren't prominently on the internet.

Apology accepted.

 

[butchersapron]

The Labour party had signalled their intention to set up a nationwide system of comprehensive education prior to the 1964 General Election. They won that election with that promise to the fore of their published manifesto. The Crosland Circular setting up nationwide comprehnesives followed in 1965. The Labour party then won another General Election in 1966. That would suggest to me that there was no massive swing against Labour as a result of either the commitement to comprehensive education nor its application.

And oddly enough, far more comprehensives were set up under the tories than under labour - during a period in which both parties on and lost elections. Which would further suggest that the issue was not a paricularly hot one, at least not one that led to people crossing party lines in massive and election swinging numbers anyway.

 

[belboid]

Apology accepted.

So, where are your figures? Or will you admit to just making them up?