New Academies?

[observer]

A return to elitism or meritocracy?

[Evil Sid]

yes

[asperity]

Most definitely.

[Dizzy]

I agree

[observer]

[asperity]

Well I'm glad you seem to find such a serious matter so funny Obs

[observer]

Just your answers!

[Horace]

"Accademies"? I hope they will mean a return to good spelling!

[Eagle]

 

Is a Scottish academy called a macademy?

[observer]

Well that one inspired some thought!

[Sue Durnim]

 

Is a Scottish academy called a macademy?

 

The 'Macademy' is for learning how to use a proper computer.

[Sue Durnim]

A return to elitism or meritocracy?

 

Just a thought...these academies, as far as I know, will be sponsored by companies such as BT and the like, but what happens if these firms go bankrupt or decide to withdraw sponsorship because profits are low?

[Eagle]

They will look for another sponsor.

[observer]

Merely a licence for pushy parents to keep inventing new schools until they get one that will suit their little Jonny! The same type of parents that suddenly change their religion, or move house or lie about where they live - just to get their little Jonny in "the best" school.

[Bazj]

They never ticked boxes when I went to Bewsey Primary..... You went to school, you did your work and if you were lucky enough (or clever enough) you passed the 11 plus and went to Grammar school

 

Back then kids were seen as what they really are; different. Some kids are clever and some kids aren't, some are good at sports, I wasn't.

 

Unfortunately, the last 13 years of trying to make us all the same hasn't worked and so we now have situations where thick kids are put with clever kids because that is the "fair" way to do it.. All that seems to have achieved is to create a level of mediocracy where no one is encouraged to excel at anything in case it may upset those that can't

 

Some people (and especially politicians) can't seem to grasp the concept that some people can't do certain things, no matter how much money or effort you throw at it!

[Peter T]

Careful Baz. you're talking common sense. Totally agree.

[Egbert]

 

Unfortunately, the last 13 years of trying to make us all the same hasn't worked

 

What on earth makes you think this has only been going on for 13 years? There has been a relentless dumbing down since, at the very least, the end of WW2 - in fact ever since Labour became one of the two main parties. If they are in power, they do it because...well, that's what Labour do. When the Conservatives are in power they do it because they are afraid of losing votes if they don't.

 

Personally, to go back to Observer's introductory post, I believe in elitism. We need the brain boxes to support the rest of us. I fear it won't happen though. Academies will be different in name only.

[asperity]

What Baz said, plus what Egbert said

[observer]

I agree Baz, but what your talking about is a meritocratic system, based on the natural abilities and aptitude of the individual student and NOT on their social background, wealth or parental ambitions. The purpose and point of education should be to help kids to realise their full potential, whatever that potential may be. However, there appears to be two schools of thought: one being that ALL students should receive an alround education - sort of education for it's own sake, in the interest of the individual; the other being - that the education system should tap into the natural aptitude of students and stream them into vocational outcomes, in the interest of the State. The micro-management of education by successive Governments, attempting to impose their own dogmas on either producing more access to University for it's own sake, with Micky Mouse degrees or to cater for parental ambition through "choice" (= ability to pay); has clearly failed to produce the skills base necessary for a modern competitive economy - be it, top scientists and engineers or plumbers and electricians. Whilst a major factor involved, is outside the scope of the school enviroment IE the presence or otherwise of a home family culture of ambition and encouragement to achieve educational success; and frankly, other than some form of intervention to break this cultural cycle, I'm not sure this social inequality can change. I think it's self evident that, there are thick rich kids, just as there are bright poor kids; but the outcomes suggest that the quality of education provided, does mean that the majority of our top professions are monopolised by the products of public schools - a system currently based on ability to pay rather than merit.

[Egbert]

Observer - does your theory take into account the very strong possibility that, broadly speaking, the affluent are affluent because they come from bright families while the poor are poor because they are not very bright. There are exceptions, of course, but it seems to me that bright, well educated families produce bright kids and make sure they also become well educated while the "thick" (to use your word) families haven't got the sense to ensure their kids get a good education. So the "gap" between rich and poor is perpetuated and, as I said before, we need the bright well educated ones to support the rest.

[observer]

I think that's what I was saying Egg: there is a huge difference between education and intelligence; one can have one without the other - the home culture, either fosters an interest to learn (producing articulate 10 year olds, that play a musical instrument and call classic fm!) or demotivated urchins, that find it hard to string a sentence together without expletives - it's all about one's social circumstances, in other words nurture NOT nature - so your assertion that there is some genetic destiny involved would suggest some form of selective breeding programme, which I doubt would produce the numbers of skilled workers essential to a 21century economy. btw there are many extremely rich footballers and pop singers that are as thick as two short planks - so that would appear to torpedoe your assertion about some DNA involvement! .

[Peter T]

Do you have any proof that these footballers are thick? They still have to complete their education.

If having a talent that enables them to earn huge amounts of money, it could be said that they are very clever.

 

One point about low income families is that quite often the parents don't see education as being important and that handicaps the children straight away as there is no encouragement for them to achieve.

[observer]

Being able to kick a piece of leather around a field doesn't necessarilly mean your going to father an Albert Einstein; but your money will ensure, irrespective of ability, that little Jonny will receive the best possible education. As for your second paragraph, that's precisely the point I'm making, poor kids, even if they are bright, are trapped in a culture of ignorance.

[Egbert]

Obs

Where do I talk about genetic breeding programmes? I made it quite clear I was speaking in broad terms and that there are exceptions to the rule. Nothing you have said torpedoes anything I have said.

Yes, footballers and pop stars can earn huge sums of money without being particularly bright. A significant number of them go on to lose all that money once their playing/singing days are over. Others have to employ agents to hang on to their loot for them.

No I still believe there is self evident that, generally speaking, bright parents produce bright children and, on top of that, have the intelligence to make sure they get a good education as well.

Those of less intelligence do not see the importance of an education. Often they say: "I've done all right, haven't I?" Usually, the ones that say it have not done all right at all but are apparently prepared to kid themselves that they have.

You are not one of those, are you?

[observer]

Well, I think we can agree that bright parents (those with the IQ to appreciate the value of education), will produce brighter kids, not through any genetic factor, but through their upbringing - add to this the cash to open doors and you've arrived. Conversely, parents with no appreciation or interest in education, will trap their kids in a culture of ignorance, not because the poor kid is necessarilly genetically intellectually challenged, but because there is no encouragement; and there is of course no cash to seal the deal if the kid breaks out of this cycle.