Contractors are Thatchers children

[Bagpuss]

That may be true. I think you will also find that Thatcher closed more grammar schools than Roy Castle ever did either. You are clutching at straws. You are a direct beneficiary of Thatcherism whether you like it or not, yet you vilify her. care to comment on that?

No of course not, just like NickFitz, Alfw and all the rest of you the pathetic little hypocrites the best you can do is to trash her from at best the benefit of hindsight and from spin.

Please stick to the point and tell me how someone who closed more grammar schools than any other education minister before or since is an advocate of grammar school education? You are either telling lies on purpose or you are just ill informed.
Did you even know the conservative government of the 1950s opened the first comprehensive schools?
How many grammar schools did Maggie or John Major create? I'll give you a clue it is less than one.

[Gonzo]

Hilarious. The woman is nearly dead but the mere mention of her still provokes bitter debate. Despite the fact that she was only ever a figurehead and started to lose the plot after her puppet-master retired.

I turned socialist during my student days because of her but have reverted back since. The more people that I meet, the less I can share the socialists' optimism about society.

The 1980s were a very painful time for many people and communities but the more I look back then more I agree that it was a necessesary adjustment.

The workers were crushed but after their behaviour during the 1970s, I would have crushed them too.

Both the Heath "one-nation" tory government of the early 70s and the Wilson/Callaghan Labour government of the late seventies attempted to use incomes policies to control inflation but in both cases union reaction rendered the country disfunctional, and in both cases the politicians were booted out of office.

These summaries on wikipedia do an OK job of telling the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Day_Week
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_discontent

It is possible that I am "mis-remembering" but I am sure I can remember seeing Arthur Scargill on TV during the 1980s miner's strike saying that his union were going to bring down the government. It is equally possible that I am thinking of his Spitting Image puppet.

Either way, I am glad those days are long gone.

[Gonzo]

Please stick to the point and tell me how someone who closed more grammar schools than any other education minister before or since is an advocate of grammar school education? You are either telling lies on purpose or you are just ill informed.
Did you even know the conservative government of the 1950s opened the first comprehensive schools?
How many grammar schools did Maggie or John Major create? I'll give you a clue it is less than one.

he he

There are 20% more children in grammar schools now than there were in 1997*. Does that mean that New Labour are in favour of them?

There is a considered piece that was in the Independent back in 1996 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1338364.html.

One of the points that it makes is that the comprehensive system inhibits social cohesion rather than promotes it. This is because the comprehensive schools in middle class areas are fine it is the ones in tulipty areas that aren't. The better off parents therefore move leaving the kids from the poorer backgrounds in the worst schools.



* I read that in an article earlier. I can't find it again now but will try to find it later to back-up this assertion.

[GreenerGrass]

Dodgy, on the whole I agree with your posts. But how would Thatch have prevented the evolution of the free market economy into the form of globalisation we have today where British jobs (in the very service industry sectors which were meant to replace manufacturing) are under threat from offshoring and gross ICT abuse?
What do you think she'd have done differently to New Labour?

[DodgyAgent]

Please stick to the point and tell me how someone who closed more grammar schools than any other education minister before or since is an advocate of grammar school education? You are either telling lies on purpose or you are just ill informed.
Did you even know the conservative government of the 1950s opened the first comprehensive schools?
How many grammar schools did Maggie or John Major create? I'll give you a clue it is less than one.

OK, it is a fair point that grammar schools closed under her regime and I will quote you from the Guardian:

In the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher - herself a grammar school girl - opened the door for local councils to decide themselves whether their schools should retain their grammar status when she was the education secretary. She, like Cameron, took a political gamble. She believed that grammar schools were safe and popular with parents and councils, who would want to retain them.

But it proved to be a political misjudgment as many councils took the opportunity to rid their towns and cities of selective state education. The grammar schools that exist today are left over from that era: their councils stood firm in retaining selection.

I do however hold with my point that due to the freeing of Britains Industry from the grip of the Unions and her policy of selling council houses she enabled the working classes to become upwardly mobile. The grammar school is a side issue and were only ever available to the brightest children, many of who are IT contractors. So instead of being clerks in the civil service thanks to her you are now earning a small fortune.

My point still remains, which is that thanks to Thatcher contractors are extraordinarily wealthy. I can understand why people challenge her policies, what I dont understand is why some of you vilify her when you are the clear beneficiaries of her policies. Can one of you please explain?

[minestrone]

One of the points that it makes is that the comprehensive system inhibits social cohesion rather than promotes it. This is because the comprehensive schools in middle class areas are fine it is the ones in tulipty areas that aren't. The better off parents therefore move leaving the kids from the poorer backgrounds in the worst schools.

My mum, who worked in education for nearly 50 years, tells me that getting rid of the grammar schools was a massive mistake. Both her and my father came from pretty rough areas but went to the grammar school then went to university, that would be impossible now, even if there is a smart kid in a really rough area their education will be wasted as the plebs are chucking chairs at each other or picking on the kid at the top of the class.

[threaded]

My mum, who worked in education for nearly 50 years, tells me that getting rid of the grammar schools was a massive mistake. Both her and my father came from pretty rough areas but went to the grammer school then went to university, that would be impossible now, even if there is a smart kid in a really rough area their education will be wasted as the plebs are chucking chairs at each other or picking on the kid at the top of the class.

Yes, but there were also many left out because the system took a point at 11 years old to determine the child's future education, also the exams could be gamed by those with the pockets to pay for the extra 'tuition'.

Children respond better to different education styles as they grow up as well, having a binary system of academic vs non-academic wastes an awful lot of potential, polarises society and hinders social mobility.

[minestrone]

Yes, but there were also many left out because the system took a point at 11 years old to determine the child's future education, also the exams could be gamed by those with the pockets to pay for the extra 'tuition'.

Children respond better to different education styles as they grow up as well, having a binary system of academic vs non-academic wastes an aawful lot of potential, polarises society and hinders social mobility.

Did I not suggest and give evidence that grammar schools aid social mobility?

Comps in bad areas just drag the brightest down, my cousin got out of a crap school to go onto do accounting, they had to get a new teacher in when he decided to do maths after the age of 16, the school had never done higher maths before.

I can't believe that he was the first person in that school that was capable of higher maths.

[rootsnall]

I was in the first year to miss the grammar. I'm not sure of the facts but Barbara Castle took the blame in our household ! At a personal level at the time I was quite happy as the main difference for me was 2 hours homework a year rather than 2 hours a night. The comp was OK(ish) and I think the top set from the comp did just as well exam wise at age 16 as the kids a year older who went to the grammar. I'm sure some of the kids who would of just missed the grammar did infact benefit. Very undodgylike but I would not only do away with grammer schools but I'd also do away with private education ( and religious schools ). It is one sure fire way of motivating the politicians and everyone else involved to sort out a decent education for all. In other words their kids would have to go and compete on a level playing field with everybody else.

[threaded]

What is wrong with private education in England is that it's not open to all sections in society.

In Denmark there are various types of private education and parents are pretty much able to choose what type for their kids irrespective of income. I know a hospital cleaner and a council gardener with children not just in private education, but at a full blown boarding school. Most of the fees are paid for by the state as school fees follow the child, they don't just go into a pot that is doled out to those schools currently in favour.