User talk:Shropshire Lad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Shropshire Lad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comprehensive System

I appreciate your comments and agree with them. I did not delete the original article, in fact I think I added to it. There is a systematic bias in the article at present. I wholly support it being rewritten and extended. It should include fuller detail on the use of the system in different countries and the contrasts between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Davidkinnen 21:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive Articles

While I understand that you feel strongly on the changes I have made here, I'm not certain that you're aware of the context in which it took place. Over the past two months I have been researching and writing revisions to the articles on the tripartite system, a subject that suffers from considerable neglect on the internet. Partly because of the large amount of information on comprehensive education I picked up in the process, and partly as a result of the major changes in the information carried by related articles, I felt that a thorough rewrite would help improve the situation. I found myself making so many changes that it seemed sensible to undertake a full rewrite to give the article a coherent style. I did not do so lightly, knowing that it would upset previous authors. However I hoped that they would understand the scale of surrounding changes and the organisational changes that had taken place.

I suspect that you may be unaware of some of the new information put up as a result. In partciular, you may wish to look at Debates on the grammar school, which puts the arguments for both sides on the merits of the tripartite system as articulated since the 1940s. You may also not have seen the large amount of information about discussions over the introduction of comprehensive education in the 1960s, located in the main Tripartite System article. While I would sympathise with the idea that this information should be put in the article on the comprehensive, I personally think that debates in the fifties and sixties were about the failings of the existing system, not the merits of its replacement. If you would like to include this information in the article on the Comprehensive system, I would fully understand.

As for what you classify as 'value judgements', I fully accept that these are matters of opinion. However I am saddened that you think I have included these out of personal belief rather than a desire to note contemporary debates about the system. In response to the specific criticisms you raised:

  • “There is a widespread perception, shared by many of the system's advocates, that the comprehensive system has not been the success hoped for.” I took this from the recent radio 4 series 'Comp', which was quoting educationalist Clive Chitty and journalist Melissa Benn, both of whom were and are noted advocates of the Comprehensive system.
  • “Academic performance is usually well below selective schools. This is unsurprising, since selective schools will have a natural advantage over comprehensives. However, it can be argued that the difference cannot be explained by differences in students alone.” This has been argued by Ruth Kelly, Estelle Morris and anyone associated with the government's policy of turning comprehensives into selective schools. While I agree that it is a matter of opinion, it seems to be one shared by the two main parties and many of those preparing the forthcoming White Paper.
  • As for your questions about a 'grammar school education for all', that phrase was the one used in Labour manifestos for several years prior to the issuing of Circular 10/65. If you want a specific use of it, you can find it footnoted at the bottom of the Tripartite System article. It was regularly said by Gaitskell, Crosland and Wilson. I don't think it is unreasonable to point out the difference between intentions and reality in the same way I think it is correct to show that secondary modern schools did not receive the parity of esteem that their architects envisaged.

I recommend that you have a look at the Tripartite article, since other concerns of yours (for example the lack of a reference to the Thatcher-era comprehensivisation) would, in my opinion, be met by the content there.

I suspect that the best way to resolve this dispute is for us to create a new page, counterpart to that about debates on the grammar school. Debates on the comprehensive school could then give space for arguments for and against, and we could remove the inflamatory material from the main page on the comp. I considered doing this earlier, but felt that it overlapped with the grammar debate article. In light of what you have said, I can now see that there is a strong case for such a page, and would be happy to help you flesh it out.

As for wider rewrites, I personally cannot see anything politically motivated in the article on the Comprehensive System. If you see anything, I would be happy for you to correct it. In the article on Comprehensive schools, aside from the section on debates, I accept that there are a few sentences in the history section that could be interpretted in a negative light. This was not my intention, and if you can think of better ways to phrase them it would certainly benefit the article. However I think you might be overreacting in sugesting a full rewrite of both- it seems rather unnecessary to reproduce 80% of the information content. But, if you have the time and genuinely think my writing and research are that poor that they should be replaced, I can do nothing to stop you.

I hope that we can find a way of resolving this calmly and to the benefit of the articles' readers. --Evil Capitalist 17:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (Copies on both Shropshire Lad's talk page and at both the relevant articles)

[edit] Reply of 7/10

It was not my intention to be patronising to you. It was my intention to remain calm and civil after your original, provocative message. I do not want this to turn into a contest of egos, and am trying to explain the reasons behind the changes that you found objectionable. It has never been my intention to turn any article into propaganda, and one of the main reasons I started revising articles on the tripartite system was to try and remove bias. Both of us want a neutral, extensive article on these subjects. Please don’t let this degenerate into a slagging match between the pair of us, or we will achieve nothing.

I see you have changed the articles under debate. Let me say first that I would rather we have an article we both agree on than anything else, and I don’t intend to make any alterations to your new version. Much of what you’ve said, particularly on post-76 education is a significant improvement over what I wrote. However, I think you may have neglected a few minor points, which I have listed at the bottom. I ask that you include them in any future edit, since you will be better able to fit them in without compromising the style, and without any of my subconscious lapses into propaganda.

  • Comprehensive School article
A Neighourhood school is quite different to a modern comprehensive. The great change in comprehensive education since the 90s has been the rejection of neighbourhood schooling and the introduction of choice and travel. It’s pedantry, I know, but it’s important.
Holyhead Comp was not formed because of a shortage of other schools. It was made by amalgamating the local grammar school with other neighbouring schools, just like comprehensives post Circular 10/65. Its creation was the result of a sincere belief by local educators in the merits of multilateral schooling.
I don’t think it’s propaganda to say that London was the main advocate of comprehensive schooling in the fifties. It built the most schools, it did the most to publicise them and the LCC education office was more firmly pro-comprehensive than any other.

But, in most other matters, what you’ve included is a distinct improvement on what was there before.

  • Tripartite article: The matters you raise are important ones, and for that very reason, most of them are already in the article.
The point about ‘fell into disfavour after 1965' does not deny there was opposition beforehand. You will note that I wrote about 500 words on opposition prior to 1965, with its own dedicated section in the history. However it does not belong in the summary, for simple reasons of brevity.
The idea of parity of esteem is located under ‘guiding principles’.
I have done some research into Cyril Burt, and that is one of the reasons I have downplayed his importance. His studies on twins, which proved so controversial, were conducted between 1943 and 1966. The 11 plus was proposed in the Hadow report in 1926. The discrediting of his later research can be said to bring into question the academic reputation of some of those who supported educational testing. But I would argue that it cannot be said to strike at the very root of the exam itself.
My comment on the CSE was an extrapolation of wider information I had to hand. Looking into it, I see that you are correct, and that it was proposed in 1962. Thank you for bringing this to my attention- I found it very hard to find information on out-of-use examinations. However, it was not the case, as you assert, that all children left the secondary modern at 15 with no qualifications. All pupils who completed their education received formal acknowledgement of the fact, as a continuation of the old School Leaving Certificate from pre-44 days. Many children chose to continue on to do another year at a secondary modern (if memory serves, about 10% of the school population, although I don’t have to book to hand).
The Butler Act came out of the Beveridge report, certainly, and I don’t try and deny it for one moment. However, as you agree, Butler was a Conservative. Many left wing critics of the tripartite system, such as Chitty and Young, have portrayed it as a very Conservative system (big and small C). In particular, I am referring to the theory posed by several education historians that what the Welfare state was to the Labour party, the education system was to the Tories, particularly since, as you say, the Tories built more of the system than Labour did. I was trying to demonstrate that there was bipartisan support for the act, and for that I had to show both sides of the political spectrum
I have mentioned middle class parents three paragraphs down from the passage you quote on dissatisfaction on the left.
I don’t feel I am obliged to provide you with evidence that turning grammars into comprehensives resulted in a levelling of standards. By introducing children who had not been cherrypicked for their intelligence into the class, the exam results are bound to tail off. All schools did not receive the funding per head allocated to the grammar schools, or the same standard of teaching, simply because these resources were not provided.
It is misleading to attribute too many comprehensive switchovers to Thatcher for the reason I give in the article. Circular 10/70 gave all responsibility on the matter to LEAs, to avoid political controversy. As you point out, Thatcher turned on comprehensives once in office. Either she issued 10/70 to avoid association with the unpopular tripartite system, or she had a sudden road-to-Damascus conversion at some time between 1974 and 1979. Her only action was to disassociate herself from the changes, so I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that she went out and changed them at her own initiative.

Anyway, once again, I’d like to restate that I think it’s important that both of us avoid flying off the handle. I’m doing my best to answer your complaints, and am trying to avoid giving any offense in the process. If I am not doing this well enough, I apologise. Already, the process of dialogue is improving this article well above the standard it was beforehand, so let’s try and avoid arguing about minutiae. –Evil Capitalist 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)



Hello again,

I think we might not agree on the question of exam results. I think since Thatcher took the insane decision to set the exam boards in competition with each other, we've seen them steadily watering down standards until they're meaningless. I mean, the numbers getting 5 A*-C GCSEs has increased about 25% since 1997. If children are 25% smarter, they're hiding it well.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you about changes in attitudes to qualifications since the late fifties. People think about A levels and GCSEs and university places very differently to how they once did. Your example from BCGS shows that well- 75/90 getting O levels isn't that much worse than a modern grammar school (about 70% 5 A*-C I seem to remember). A levels back then were actually optional, rather than optional for working class children. I'm genuinely surprised to hear you say some people took four A levels- I didn't think that was a common practice until the introduction of general studies.

As for modern comparisons, I don't feel that these vindicate the Comprehensive system. You are right that Kent doesn't do particularly well, but the majority of the top fifteen LEAs still run grammar schools, including all of the top five. On the other hand, scores for value added are spread much more evenly. LEAs with both systems are capable of improving children. But the best exam results seem to go to the old relics.[1]

If you assess schools by the number of As and A*s, the best placed comprehensive school comes behind hundreds of independent schools and 61 selective schools. I don't think that's a sign of any failing on their part at all- they're trying to educate 100% of the ability range rather that the top 25%. But it does show that an end to selection will push down exam results in the best schools.[2]


I certainly wouldn't want you to get the opinion that I think all comprehensives are bad schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. I live about a quarter of a mile from one of the best comps in North Leicestershire, and I have nothing but respect for what the teachers and staff there achieve. I know full well there are some excellent comprehensives across the country. If every school in the country were like them, we'd be the envy of the world and have the smartest population of any nation.

But unfortunately, living so close I see the dark side of the system. The population of the catchment area is extremely middle class, even more so than the people who used to pass the 11+. Having such a good school nearby adds tens of thousands the local house prices, because rich parents want to get their children in there. What I really fear is the creation of a two tier comprehensive system, where middle class children get into the good schools, because their parents put money and effort into getting them there, while poor children go to local schools of widely ranging quality. I genuinely fear that talk of equality can lull us into a false sense of security, and one morning we wake up with secondary moderns again.

One thing I've learnt since I started researching these topics is how similar the two sides are at heart. We both want children to have equal opportunities to get a good education, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and we want them to go on to achieve as much as possible. If your system worked as well as you'd like it to, I'd back it, and I think the reverse is probably true. The main difference is that one side is more cynical than the other about how easy it is to build good schools.

Well, at least it's a subject that's worth getting worked up about.

--Evil Capitalist 15:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)