Gareth Potter (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ickoonite) wrote,@ 2005-12-28 10:39:00 |
|
education education education
(In response to this...)
I've never understood why it's thought that keeping the gifted and disadvantaged in the same classroom is a good idea anyway. One of the most braindead policies of Old Labour, which has alas been carried through into Tony Blair's New Labour, is that of the abolition of grammar schools (free, selective schools which take the gifted out and give them the opportunity to succeed). Instead they believe that all should attend what we call comprehensive schools, which accept all children in a given area and set them according to ability.
The problem, however, is that placed in the same geographical location, the gifted - who are generally inevitably to bear the brunt of the disadvantaged's anger and frustration - are deterred from their studies and then fail to perform as well as they might if they were in a grammar. The comprehensive is in so many ways a manifestation of that ideal society of which the Left dreams, where everyone lives in harmony.
The reality - that comprehensives mirror the conflict of the community that surrounds them - is much different, and I consider it irresponsible to threaten the futures of so many by clinging to mistaken ideals. The only point one might make in favour of mixing the gifted and disadvantaged, then, is that to do so would create a "character-building" experience for the gifted of which we speak.
Do the gifted need to undergo "character-building" experiences at that age? Perhaps. But I do wonder whether bullying and victimisation are the best ways to go about it.
(In response to this...)
I've never understood why it's thought that keeping the gifted and disadvantaged in the same classroom is a good idea anyway. One of the most braindead policies of Old Labour, which has alas been carried through into Tony Blair's New Labour, is that of the abolition of grammar schools (free, selective schools which take the gifted out and give them the opportunity to succeed). Instead they believe that all should attend what we call comprehensive schools, which accept all children in a given area and set them according to ability.
The problem, however, is that placed in the same geographical location, the gifted - who are generally inevitably to bear the brunt of the disadvantaged's anger and frustration - are deterred from their studies and then fail to perform as well as they might if they were in a grammar. The comprehensive is in so many ways a manifestation of that ideal society of which the Left dreams, where everyone lives in harmony.
The reality - that comprehensives mirror the conflict of the community that surrounds them - is much different, and I consider it irresponsible to threaten the futures of so many by clinging to mistaken ideals. The only point one might make in favour of mixing the gifted and disadvantaged, then, is that to do so would create a "character-building" experience for the gifted of which we speak.
Do the gifted need to undergo "character-building" experiences at that age? Perhaps. But I do wonder whether bullying and victimisation are the best ways to go about it.
