• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

State comprehensives; are they really that bad?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    State comprehensives; are they really that bad?

    Now then, posh gits like me have an impression that state schools are full of obnoxious chavs who throw chairs around the classroom and beat crap out of anyone who appears capable of actually getting a 'C' for one of their GCSE-thingummyjigs, never mind 4 Grade A 'A' levels or going to Oxford or Cambridge. Apparently the 'students' finish school unable to read, write or do basic arithmetics, and there isn't even any teaching of elementary particle physics. Many of the girls end up pregnant at 14 and are twice divorced grannies by the time they're 28. It's not so much 'ciggies behind the bike shed' as 'crack cocaine behind the bike shed' and that's just the teachers.

    It's a dark view and perhaps more than a little prejudiced and exaggerated, seeing as I've met plenty of state educated people who seem to be pretty happy, well adjusted adults.

    So tell me, if you went to a comp, how was it? Would you send your kids to the same school?
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    #2
    oh dear.

    Milan.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
      So tell me, if you went to a comp, how was it? Would you send your kids to the same school?
      Just about OK.

      Probably will as I'm living in the same area and intend retiring at about the same time my youngest would still be at secondary school.

      ps. our local 6th form is rated very highly ( top few in the country I think ) but is now full of privately educated kids being bused in from miles away
      Last edited by rootsnall; 26 November 2009, 12:37.

      Comment


        #4
        I went to a comp. It was ok.

        4 pregnancies in my final year (out of c150 girls in the year).

        Like any comp it had a mix of good and bad kids (I was prob somewhere in the middle) and seemed to do ok on GCSE results - I took 10 and passed 8 at grade B or above.

        I know of several idiots at the school who did considerably worse and several bright kids who did much better.

        Mrs MM has taught at the local comp, where the kids are a mix of middle class kids who's parents can't afford to pay for education and some grot bags from the local sink estates. Consequently her experience has been varied. Some kids are tulips, some would brighten her day. It doesn't seem that different to my experience.
        ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

        Comment


          #5
          I'll have to add that the idea the good kids will pull up the bad ones is complete cobblers. I always thought this was part of the general agenda for comps.

          I remember one kid proudly stating that there was no need to learn English as was off to "dig holes in the road for British Gas and work his way up". He look dead pleased with himself until some wag shouted out "Work your way up to what, bigger holes?".

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by The_Equalizer View Post

            I remember one kid proudly stating that there was no need to learn English as was off to "dig holes in the road for British Gas and work his way up". He look dead pleased with himself until some wag shouted out "Work your way up to what, bigger holes?".
            As opposed to public school kids who dig holes in the balance sheets for British banks and then work their way up to digging bigger holes?
            And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

            Comment


              #7
              I went to a comprehensive
              A few of us have done alright, at least 2 of my class mates can use the Dr title.

              There were some idiots, although most of them seemed to dissappear halfway through 5th year.
              Almost all lessons were ability streamed from 3rd year onwards which helped.
              Most of the teachers seemed to be able to keep the idiots in check and teach those of us who wanted to learn

              The only problem I found with school (primary and secondary) was that it was far too easy
              Coffee's for closers

              Comment


                #8
                Well that is one extreme, there are loads of state schools where the focus is to achieve the targets and improve in the league tables, this is done by trying to bring the slower ones up to improve the average, so if you are already average or better you are under the radar and not challenged, so you may get through the system ok then find a big shock when you can't get into a top university or get a good job.

                Of course some of the brighter ones get through shining into Oxford and Cambridge etc, very much the exception though and I suspect the more successful ones have had outside tuition.
                This default font is sooooooooooooo boring and so are short usernames

                Comment


                  #9
                  I'm not qualified to comment. I went to a Church school whose pupils were getting the second highest grades in London at the time.

                  Second to us in the Borough was the Grammar School.

                  Then it was the small private girl's school, but they specialised in subjects that a conventional work force did not need. Their pupils will now be very comfortable, I am sure.

                  Way below those three were the state comprehensives.

                  So then again, maybe I am qualified to comment.


                  I think the main problem was they used 'streaming' while we used 'sets'. The kids in the state schools were, each year, placed in a 'stream' according to their ability across all subjects. As a consequence, those that excelled in one or two subjects were bunged in with the average crowd. Those that excelled in many subjects still had some classes where they were out of their depth and so would fail. The net result was an overall poor to average result for everyone.

                  Meanwhile, we were placed in a different set for every subject twice a year. You could be in the top (of 6) sets in one subject, in the bottom for another and so on. Hence you would be pushed in the subjects you were good at but helped in those you were crap it. There was no shame in being in a bottom set for something; you would be in higher sets for other subjects. There was also no arrogance from being in a top set; I don't think anybody would have been in the top set for all their subjects. (There may have been a few, but I cannot recall any.) As a result, we all got better grades in every subject.

                  But, using 'sets' is harder on the senior teachers because timetable planning is more difficult and there was no incentive in the state schools to bother.

                  I'm sure we also had better teachers and better premises than many schools, but I blame the 'streaming' technique for 80% of the ills in a comprehensive.
                  My all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                    As opposed to public school kids who dig holes in the balance sheets for British banks and then work their way up to digging bigger holes?
                    It was more the assumption that because he had a plan that it was okay to arse about and no one else should learn anything.

                    From my experience there were a couple of types that went into the City. Group one left school in the 5th, were a bit rough and went into the trading side of things. The others were the very bright who entered after going to top-end universities.

                    As it happens the only one that became a fund manager failed his GCSE mathematics four times.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X