![]() |
help |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
You are in: Vote2001: Talking Point |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Monday, 4 June, 2001, 11:12 GMT 12:12 UK
Education - the end of comprehensives?
![]()
The comprehensive schools system in England will be broken up if Labour wins another term in office with its plans for more diverse secondary schools.
The Conservatives support abolishing the comprehensive system and have promised schools will be able to opt out to become selective grammar schools. The Liberal Democrats say abolishing comprehensives is selection by the back door and say there should be diversity within schools not between them.
What do you think about the future of secondary education? Does the end of comprehensives mean more or less selection for children? This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Your reactions
My view is to make the user pay. It's done for motoring why not schooling. The argument is largely irrelevant, however, because the Lib-Dems haven't got a hope of gaining power
David Griffiths (18), Preston, UK
School exclusions have only dropped because of the massive fine imposed on schools for each pupil they exclude!
You are never going to get any sort of decent education system for all while those in power can send their children to private/public schools. They have no great interest in improving the system because they don't use it.
If you want a decent education system for all the only way is to abolish private education. Just think of how many teachers that would free up.
The real issue facing education at the moment is a chronic lack of teachers. When the Times Educational Supplement carries 5 sections per week just of job adverts amounting to over a thousand pages, the claim that their is no crisis is a laughable as it is lamentable. Instead of debating the niceties of specialist schools, we need to address the problem of why teachers are leaving the profession in droves.
Peter Worsley, Cheltenham, England
The problem with comprehensives is that they takes little account of differing
abilities. The problem with grammars is that they work by dumping the
less-able. What if all schools were to do that?. The problem with (proper) streaming
within schools is that it is potentially a lot more costly.
Paul R, Oxford, UK
I have put 4 children through the school process. Two were academic and went on to University.
Two were practical. They had no benefit from their last two years at school, they were bored and often in trouble. As soon as they left school they changed. One trained to become a dedicated chef, the other a highly skilled welder.
Currently, schools cannot deal effectively with children who are not academic. There is no place for children who are naturally practical and like doing and making. What has happened to comprehensive education when it is almost purely academic and hardly practical?
My research for Phil Willis, Lib Dem Education Spokesperson, showed that most specialist schools are in advantaged social areas. The Liberal Democrats want to see all schools be funded to the extent that specialist schools are. Phil always says "I want to see 100% of schools specialist", that's to say the Lib Dems want fairer funding between schools. Moreover, from my research I would say that it is clearly important that we address the location of specialist schools. In conclusion, we need fairer funding between schools and diversity within schools.
Having done extremely well at GCSE (7 A*, 3A) my daughter has now gone into this horrendous new system for A levels which requires them to do 4-5 subjects in the first year.
Once more the emphasis is on quantity - the stress levels are horrendous. Yet despite her obviously high achievement levels she is not being given any 'special treatment' that BBC correspondents speak of with such certainty.
To my mind the main danger is that our education system puts considerably too much pressure on our young people. Attempts at 'breadth' in the curriculum are also at the cost of extra-curricular activities.
Dan, Folkestone, England
I don't think that grammar & secondary modern schools have made any significant difference over the last 20 yrs. My 11 yr old daughter has opted not to take the 11+; however there is a very good grant maintained school, which she will be going to in September. I think it is more important to ensure children are motivated, whatever school they go to.
In short, don't write someone off because they fail an exam, it does not mean they will fail to have a decent career!
Mark, London, UK
The problem with having specialist schools in country areas is that, because of the transport problems, many families really have no choice as to which secondary school to send their children. In effect, it is only the better off who have a choice. Every Comprehensive school should provide excellence in all subjects.
My view is that the reason for the present school system is purely political. In the old school system different people were at different stages of education but in the present system everyone is at the same stage and the government set a standard for children that would look good to voters.
John Haywood, London
A comprehensive schooling system is the only system to deliver the education of young people. Selection is elitism, and must be disregarded for many reasons. It has detrimental effects on children not considered "gifted" They are at risk of being given a poor education, whilst special treatment is given to the minority of top class students. Those who suggest any such dangerous changes obviously have not evaluated the present equal opportunities comprehensive system. Those who oppose equality in any institution are dinosaurs, and their ideas are fast becoming an extinct minority.
I don't feel abolishing the comprehensives would benefit all children. Grammar schools may have been beneficial to me but my brother would have lost out educationally as he is severely dyslexic, and would never have made it into grammar school, although he is an intelligent as I am. He has 9 good GCSE's and 4 A levels, and is now at university. This would not have happened, if he had been in a selective system - at 11 or 13 he could not have passed any sort of entrance exam.
I feel comprehensive system on the whole works, although more attention is needed both for those pupils of high ability, and those with special needs.
Chris, Cheltenham, UK
We should be proud of comprehensive schools and build upon their existing, underlying strengths.
I am certain that teachers and parents alike will always be interested in any improvements that can be made, but 'sloganising' in an attempt to capture the minds of certain groups of parents is a mere diversion.
Bring back grammar schools and get rid of GCSEs. Why on earth should the education system pretend that everyone 'succeeds'?
Also, provide special needs education for gifted children. They really miss out in comprehensives and do not get to develop their abilities.
Abolishing comprehensives would benefit all our students. The more able will be able to learn more quickly and the less able will be able to be taught at their own level and will leave school both more educated and more confident.
|
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | ||
![]() | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
^^ Back to top VOTE2001 | Main Issues| Features | Crucial Seats | Key People | Parties | Results & Constituencies | Candidates | Opinion Polls | Online 1000 | Virtual Vote | Talking Point | Forum | AudioVideo | Programmes | Voting System | Local Elections Nations: N Ireland | Scotland | Wales --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC News>> | To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> |