Half of city schools could be academies (From Daily Echo)

It is said that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, and the same 'ingredients' will be available to the academies as has been available to the current schools.

I agree Linesman. There are the same good and bad pupils, and good and bad teachers. Teachers have had all their authority in the classroom undermined but giving more authority to a poor teacher is not going to solve anything. The real key to a successful school is ensuring bad pupils and teachers do not hold back the willing and capable who want to do more.

And the point is..............?

So let me get this right! you lot think it's wrong to destroy good schools with good teachers?
Isn't that what Labour did when they shut many Grammar/Grammer schools & replaced them with Comprehensive schools?
If the headmaster of an Academy can't get the results with his/her present teachers then they would have the power to tell them to up their game or replace them.
I went to a school ( juniors) where the teachers wouldn't teach you if council ( one bad teacher at Foundry Lane) so some passed their eleven plus & went to a Grammer but we were told if we could improve we could apply for the Grammer school.
Labour wanted us all equal but comprehensives have proved that a lie.
Academies were lambasted by local Labour party people yet here we go & union of two schools with much hostility has been turned into a positive with improving education standards how can you slate it?

loosehead wrote:
So let me get this right! you lot think it's wrong to destroy good schools with good teachers?
Isn't that what Labour did when they shut many Grammar/Grammer schools & replaced them with Comprehensive schools?
If the headmaster of an Academy can't get the results with his/her present teachers then they would have the power to tell them to up their game or replace them.
I went to a school ( juniors) where the teachers wouldn't teach you if council ( one bad teacher at Foundry Lane) so some passed their eleven plus & went to a Grammer but we were told if we could improve we could apply for the Grammer school.
Labour wanted us all equal but comprehensives have proved that a lie.
Academies were lambasted by local Labour party people yet here we go & union of two schools with much hostility has been turned into a positive with improving education standards how can you slate it?

Fact - more comprehensive schools were created under Thatcher than any other education minister.

Freefinker, the Thatcher/Grammar yarn is an urban myth, the truth was that schools applied to transfer to become comprehensives under the Wilson government and by the time she was Education Secretary the cost of preventing this was too great. Comprehensives schools on the whole have been good but have never helped the very able. The problem with Southampton is that most secondary schools are located on big estates where land was cheap and available and sadly the problems in the neighbourhoods arrived at the school gate.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
I agree Linesman. There are the same good and bad pupils, and good and bad teachers. Teachers have had all their authority in the classroom undermined but giving more authority to a poor teacher is not going to solve anything. The real key to a successful school is ensuring bad pupils and teachers do not hold back the willing and capable who want to do more.

I agree.
My own personal view is that as far back as I can remember, teachers are virtually unsackable - something like 20 teachers have been sacked in the past 40 years! By anyone's standards, that is ridiculous!
It also came to pass that unruly pupils were almost impossible to exclude from schools. Add the two together and you have a recipe for failure. Probably explains why so many children leave school unable to read, write or add up.
(It also doesn't help if the governors of schools have ideology/religious agendas - the education of the children must be paramount)

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, the Thatcher/Grammar yarn is an urban myth, the truth was that schools applied to transfer to become comprehensives under the Wilson government and by the time she was Education Secretary the cost of preventing this was too great. Comprehensives schools on the whole have been good but have never helped the very able. The problem with Southampton is that most secondary schools are located on big estates where land was cheap and available and sadly the problems in the neighbourhoods arrived at the school gate.

.. not myth at all.

She may not have liked them but, nevertheless, it was during her turn as Education Secretary that more comprehensive schools come into existence than under any other Education Secretary – Labour or Tory.

She could have stopped them.

She didn't.

How is this good. It's proven that it takes a few years for the transition to settle and during this time hundreds of student recieve very poor quality teaching and poor GCSE's. However this is not a real concern for current academies like Oasis Mayfield as they sell their under performing students to outside agencies thus improving their own GCSE stats. But they don't tell you that when new student apply because it easliy reflect the fact that they couldn't give a stuff about proper education and more about finance and building state of the art buildings that cannot hold the full average sized class of students.

If you want you child to do well at school keep away from academies.

How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Stupideditor wrote:
How is this good. It's proven that it takes a few years for the transition to settle and during this time hundreds of student recieve very poor quality teaching and poor GCSE's. However this is not a real concern for current academies like Oasis Mayfield as they sell their under performing students to outside agencies thus improving their own GCSE stats. But they don't tell you that when new student apply because it easliy reflect the fact that they couldn't give a stuff about proper education and more about finance and building state of the art buildings that cannot hold the full average sized class of students.

If you want you child to do well at school keep away from academies.

Very true, Parents of schools should be allowed to vote on weather they want a academies schools in there area, on this side parents do not want them but have been force in to them, when Millbrook school ( Green lane Boys & Brownhill Girls ) was turned into a academie school a lot of them choose to send there kids to Redbridge because it was not an academie school and now they are being force into a academie schools by not having a choice.

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

The thing is they was not well not here in southampton, as far as I can tell Gramma Schools stayed Gramma schools just that after 1950 new schools that was built was comprehencive state owned schools, compreencive schools was more into the Maths & Sciences and with that came History and Geography.

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

The thing is they was not well not here in southampton, as far as I can tell Gramma Schools stayed Gramma schools just that after 1950 new schools that was built was comprehencive state owned schools, compreencive schools was more into the Maths & Sciences and with that came History and Geography.

Southy, just a heads up, pre 1974 there were 5 grammar schools in Southampton- Tauntons, Itchen, Girls Grammar, King Edwards and St Anne's. The first 3 became 6th form colleges, KES went private and St Annes went comprehensive. It's interesting that aspirational middle class parents still send their daughters to St Annes whether they are Catholic or not.

is this not yet another Tory privatisation scheme.... this time going for the education system....

And Redbridge a successful school, don't make me laugh!!!!

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

The thing is they was not well not here in southampton, as far as I can tell Gramma Schools stayed Gramma schools just that after 1950 new schools that was built was comprehencive state owned schools, compreencive schools was more into the Maths & Sciences and with that came History and Geography.

I note that you didn't argue with my point and nor did you answer the question!
>
I went to school with kids who made it to grammar school - it was the ambition of every parent (or should have been) that their child went to the grammar school! It was the route out of their poor background.
>
Many many poor kids have been deprived because of the lack of Grammar schools. Many many kids have been ruined by Comprehensives.
>

Condor Man wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

The thing is they was not well not here in southampton, as far as I can tell Gramma Schools stayed Gramma schools just that after 1950 new schools that was built was comprehencive state owned schools, compreencive schools was more into the Maths & Sciences and with that came History and Geography.

Southy, just a heads up, pre 1974 there were 5 grammar schools in Southampton- Tauntons, Itchen, Girls Grammar, King Edwards and St Anne's. The first 3 became 6th form colleges, KES went private and St Annes went comprehensive. It's interesting that aspirational middle class parents still send their daughters to St Annes whether they are Catholic or not.

Correction Condor King Edwards yes it a Gramma school and stayed a Gramma school.
St Annes was not a Gramma School it was a RC school and still is. even lo people send there girls there of all Religion.
George4th got it right when he said Gramma Schools was for the poor to teach them English, and was run by the local parish though Donations.
The two Boarding Schools that went bankrupt was Green Lane Boys School, that was pulled down and moved across the road, and two schools was built Brownhill girls and Green lane boys, later to become a mix school under the name of Millbrook school. The other boarding school on this side of Southampton was Regents Park Girls School, The Manor house was donated to start a school there by Lady Clearence (of Barker and Mills) and because it when bankrupt the Government bought it and rebuild a new school in the late 50's.
Before Comp/schools was interduce you had a choice of the poorman Grammar school, or a Religous School run by the church, or you had Private Schools.
Another Grammar school comes to mind Foundry Lane school and still is a Gramma school.

Condor Man wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

The thing is they was not well not here in southampton, as far as I can tell Gramma Schools stayed Gramma schools just that after 1950 new schools that was built was comprehencive state owned schools, compreencive schools was more into the Maths & Sciences and with that came History and Geography.

Southy, just a heads up, pre 1974 there were 5 grammar schools in Southampton- Tauntons, Itchen, Girls Grammar, King Edwards and St Anne's. The first 3 became 6th form colleges, KES went private and St Annes went comprehensive. It's interesting that aspirational middle class parents still send their daughters to St Annes whether they are Catholic or not.

Good post.
St Anne's is the best school for miles if you want your daughter to have a good education.

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

The thing is they was not well not here in southampton, as far as I can tell Gramma Schools stayed Gramma schools just that after 1950 new schools that was built was comprehencive state owned schools, compreencive schools was more into the Maths & Sciences and with that came History and Geography.

I note that you didn't argue with my point and nor did you answer the question!
>
I went to school with kids who made it to grammar school - it was the ambition of every parent (or should have been) that their child went to the grammar school! It was the route out of their poor background.
>
Many many poor kids have been deprived because of the lack of Grammar schools. Many many kids have been ruined by Comprehensives.
>

did not argue you the point, because Gramma schools was a lot better for English but was on the same par for Maths but lack in the Sciences and history and Geography Comp/schools was better for, and that was only because they was being funded by the right amount to be ahead in those subjects by the government, Grammar schools funds was by donations. and was limited in what they could teach in.

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

The thing is they was not well not here in southampton, as far as I can tell Gramma Schools stayed Gramma schools just that after 1950 new schools that was built was comprehencive state owned schools, compreencive schools was more into the Maths & Sciences and with that came History and Geography.

I note that you didn't argue with my point and nor did you answer the question!
>
I went to school with kids who made it to grammar school - it was the ambition of every parent (or should have been) that their child went to the grammar school! It was the route out of their poor background.
>
Many many poor kids have been deprived because of the lack of Grammar schools. Many many kids have been ruined by Comprehensives.
>

did not argue you the point, because Gramma schools was a lot better for English but was on the same par for Maths but lack in the Sciences and history and Geography Comp/schools was better for, and that was only because they was being funded by the right amount to be ahead in those subjects by the government, Grammar schools funds was by donations. and was limited in what they could teach in.

Where in heavens name did you get that info about Grammar schools?! Grammar schools were excellent for English, Maths, History, Geography, Languages AND Sciences! It was the advent of Many Comprehensives eventually started us down the road of subjects that were of no use in the modern economy!

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:
How many Grammar Schools was there in Southampton before 1948, only 1 I believe and that is still a Grammar school, there was 2 Boarding schools on what is now western Southampton both went bankrupt and the Government took over the schools and rebuild them, the rest on this side was all built as comprehensives as brand new schools.
the other side of southampton i could not tell you about.

Grammar schools were route one for kids from poor backgrounds to go on and make something of themselves. Why was this taken away from so many, depriving them of opportunity?

The thing is they was not well not here in southampton, as far as I can tell Gramma Schools stayed Gramma schools just that after 1950 new schools that was built was comprehencive state owned schools, compreencive schools was more into the Maths & Sciences and with that came History and Geography.

Southy, just a heads up, pre 1974 there were 5 grammar schools in Southampton- Tauntons, Itchen, Girls Grammar, King Edwards and St Anne's. The first 3 became 6th form colleges, KES went private and St Annes went comprehensive. It's interesting that aspirational middle class parents still send their daughters to St Annes whether they are Catholic or not.

Correction Condor King Edwards yes it a Gramma school and stayed a Gramma school.
St Annes was not a Gramma School it was a RC school and still is. even lo people send there girls there of all Religion.
George4th got it right when he said Gramma Schools was for the poor to teach them English, and was run by the local parish though Donations.
The two Boarding Schools that went bankrupt was Green Lane Boys School, that was pulled down and moved across the road, and two schools was built Brownhill girls and Green lane boys, later to become a mix school under the name of Millbrook school. The other boarding school on this side of Southampton was Regents Park Girls School, The Manor house was donated to start a school there by Lady Clearence (of Barker and Mills) and because it when bankrupt the Government bought it and rebuild a new school in the late 50's.
Before Comp/schools was interduce you had a choice of the poorman Grammar school, or a Religous School run by the church, or you had Private Schools.
Another Grammar school comes to mind Foundry Lane school and still is a Gramma school.

you are wrong there. St Annes was a grammar school as well as being a rc school. I passed my 11plus exam and got a place at st. annes.
I was not able to go because my parents could not afford the school uniform, so I went to st. georges which was at the time a mixed sec. modern school. St Annes later became a girls comp., with st. georges becoming a boys comp.

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, the Thatcher/Grammar yarn is an urban myth, the truth was that schools applied to transfer to become comprehensives under the Wilson government and by the time she was Education Secretary the cost of preventing this was too great. Comprehensives schools on the whole have been good but have never helped the very able. The problem with Southampton is that most secondary schools are located on big estates where land was cheap and available and sadly the problems in the neighbourhoods arrived at the school gate.

From my own experience, having gone to school in the New Forest, it appeared that, regardless of the pupil's ability, only two ever passed to go to Brockenhurst when it was a Grammar School.

The number rose from about 1946 onwards.

The reason given why Grammar Schools were replaced with Comprehensives was that children's future was decided at the age of 11, when it was known that children develop at different rates.

It was also considered that more money per pupil was spent on grammar school children than on the others.

Grammar schools did get better results, which is understand able when you take into the fact that the brightest, at a certain age, were creamed off to go there and then more money was spent on their education and better facilities provided.

It was rare for a Secondary Modern pupil to get to University, but it is now quite common for pupils who have attended a Comprehensive to make the grade.

All children should have an equal opportunity, and that was not the case under the old grammar school system.

Gainer T Gopher wrote:
is this not yet another Tory privatisation scheme.... this time going for the education system....

And Redbridge a successful school, don't make me laugh!!!!

Gainer what the hell are you going on about?
Academies were set up by Tony Blair to try to correct the failed comprehensive experiment.
He asked the Likes of Oasis which is a Christian organisation to step into education they had nothing to do with it before.
The Tory council could see a way of rebuilding either old schools or replacing schools that were of poor construction & improving the education of the pupils.
They opted for Oasis & Labour party ( local) & Denham & Whitehead ripped into them even though it was their parties idea.
to get the funding a new building ( to improve the facilities) would have to be built.
As it was they gave the parents the option of remaining at one of the present schools or going to a third site they opted for the third site

Southy I know someone who passed his eleven plus & could have gone to King Edwards.at the time he opted to go to Bellemoor because it's Art facilities were superior( teachers, Holt etc) & his friends were going there.
Why do people believe you should hold back the bright kids from whatever background they come from?
If a teacher is worth his salt surely if a child has the potential to improve then you work with that child & get the best from him/her.
Not say sorry you will have to stay in this class until the others catch up?
I was good at History,Biology & Geography I passed with top marks my yearly exams but had to go back over it the next year so the others could catch up I was bored & mucked about & was called a disruptive child.
This was the Legacy of Comprehensive socialist education system that Blair knew was wrong

loosehead wrote:

Gainer T Gopher wrote: is this not yet another Tory privatisation scheme.... this time going for the education system.... And Redbridge a successful school, don't make me laugh!!!!

Gainer what the hell are you going on about? Academies were set up by Tony Blair to try to correct the failed comprehensive experiment. He asked the Likes of Oasis which is a Christian organisation to step into education they had nothing to do with it before. The Tory council could see a way of rebuilding either old schools or replacing schools that were of poor construction & improving the education of the pupils. They opted for Oasis & Labour party ( local) & Denham & Whitehead ripped into them even though it was their parties idea. to get the funding a new building ( to improve the facilities) would have to be built. As it was they gave the parents the option of remaining at one of the present schools or going to a third site they opted for the third site

Thatcher started the privatisation of industry.....

Labour was against it until they got in power and continued.....

Tory's have continued......

Thus, privatising the education system.....

loosehead wrote:

Gainer T Gopher wrote: is this not yet another Tory privatisation scheme.... this time going for the education system.... And Redbridge a successful school, don't make me laugh!!!!

Gainer what the hell are you going on about? Academies were set up by Tony Blair to try to correct the failed comprehensive experiment. He asked the Likes of Oasis which is a Christian organisation to step into education they had nothing to do with it before. The Tory council could see a way of rebuilding either old schools or replacing schools that were of poor construction & improving the education of the pupils. They opted for Oasis & Labour party ( local) & Denham & Whitehead ripped into them even though it was their parties idea. to get the funding a new building ( to improve the facilities) would have to be built. As it was they gave the parents the option of remaining at one of the present schools or going to a third site they opted for the third site

Thatcher started the privatisation of industry.....

Labour was against it until they got in power and continued.....

Tory's have continued......

Thus, privatising the education system.....

Gainer T Gopher wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Gainer T Gopher wrote: is this not yet another Tory privatisation scheme.... this time going for the education system.... And Redbridge a successful school, don't make me laugh!!!!

Gainer what the hell are you going on about? Academies were set up by Tony Blair to try to correct the failed comprehensive experiment. He asked the Likes of Oasis which is a Christian organisation to step into education they had nothing to do with it before. The Tory council could see a way of rebuilding either old schools or replacing schools that were of poor construction & improving the education of the pupils. They opted for Oasis & Labour party ( local) & Denham & Whitehead ripped into them even though it was their parties idea. to get the funding a new building ( to improve the facilities) would have to be built. As it was they gave the parents the option of remaining at one of the present schools or going to a third site they opted for the third site

Thatcher started the privatisation of industry.....

Labour was against it until they got in power and continued.....

Tory's have continued......

Thus, privatising the education system.....

So a failing school/Academy can't be taken over or shut down by the state? Stats don't count? privatisation means the state don't pay the parents do, Private companies running the schools instead of local authorities stops political parties forcing their political agenda on the schools.
The money to provide education still comes from the state so does the money to build the new schools so in fact the schools are owned & financed by the state but run by a private institution