Actually, if I'm absolutely honest, an education like mine could be (sort of) had as a day-pupil for about £16,000 pa. The Grammar Schools were abolished (mainly - some areas fought to keep them) because they were regarded as being elitist at a time when elitism was, politically speaking, out of fashion. The fact that they had been destroying the Public Schools, because most middle-class parents would have opted for a local Grammar School, for which they would not have to pay fees (merely taxes), rather than a Boarding School which cost money already taxed. The Great Public Schools like Eton and Winchester never had to bother competing with the Grammars - they were and are oversubscribed by a factor of *mumble*, but the Grammars had Minor (and Middling) Public Schools on the run. All sharing out is about resources, as I'm sure you know. At the end of the fifties, the tripartite state system of Grammars, Technical Schools, and Secondary Modern Schools, supposedly catered for all the needs of the young in need of education. However, selection happened at the age of eleven in the Eleven-Plus exam, which seperated the academically inclined from the others. On average Grammar schools took the top 20% of the children who sat the 11+. The next 20% or so went to the Technical Schools. The rest went to the Secondary Modern. Some parents rather thought that their little Johnny should have gone to the local Grammar School, even though little Johnny wasn't academically inclined. Comprehensive Schools were meant to solve this problem; effectively by attempting to give every child the chance of a Grammar School education. The thing is that a Grammar School took (from taxes) three-quarters of the costs of a day pupil at a Public School (ie if £16,000 now the equivalent would be £12,000). The bean-counters in the Treasury thought they could get away with funding Comprehensives like Secondary Moderns... I don't need to tell you how it's gone from there, you're a bright lad. The current spend per head is about £4,000 max, rising only for special needs. That's one-quarter of the per head cost of a Public School day-pupil. Its not strange then, that we've just lived through the greatest period of exam inflation in English history, and employers are complaining that people are leaving school without the basic skills of being able to read or write or do arithmatic. My Brother was a teacher (of science) in the state sector. He hated it so much he finally threw in the towel and asked for his papers. He left at Christmas after 18 years on and off (he took time out to travel), and he says these days it's much more like being a prison warder than a teacher. Things will change, no doubt. What is still heartening is that if you have enough money, you can still get a really good education. I suppose it's an incentive to join in the materialist frenzy and compete. My own preference would be a proper education for all, along the lines of the Great Public Schools, but then we'd have no-one to sweep the streets, m'dear, and that simply wouldn't do. (And also, we couldn't afford it.) Compulsory Latin for all - no reason why I should have been in the last generation to suffer it - if it made me unhappy it can jolly well make other children unhappy too. But later on, it rather helped, and did contribute significantly to the happiest period of my life to date.
no subject
The Grammar Schools were abolished (mainly - some areas fought to keep them) because they were regarded as being elitist at a time when elitism was, politically speaking, out of fashion. The fact that they had been destroying the Public Schools, because most middle-class parents would have opted for a local Grammar School, for which they would not have to pay fees (merely taxes), rather than a Boarding School which cost money already taxed. The Great Public Schools like Eton and Winchester never had to bother competing with the Grammars - they were and are oversubscribed by a factor of *mumble*, but the Grammars had Minor (and Middling) Public Schools on the run.
All sharing out is about resources, as I'm sure you know.
At the end of the fifties, the tripartite state system of Grammars, Technical Schools, and Secondary Modern Schools, supposedly catered for all the needs of the young in need of education. However, selection happened at the age of eleven in the Eleven-Plus exam, which seperated the academically inclined from the others. On average Grammar schools took the top 20% of the children who sat the 11+. The next 20% or so went to the Technical Schools. The rest went to the Secondary Modern.
Some parents rather thought that their little Johnny should have gone to the local Grammar School, even though little Johnny wasn't academically inclined.
Comprehensive Schools were meant to solve this problem; effectively by attempting to give every child the chance of a Grammar School education.
The thing is that a Grammar School took (from taxes) three-quarters of the costs of a day pupil at a Public School (ie if £16,000 now the equivalent would be £12,000). The bean-counters in the Treasury thought they could get away with funding Comprehensives like Secondary Moderns... I don't need to tell you how it's gone from there, you're a bright lad. The current spend per head is about £4,000 max, rising only for special needs. That's one-quarter of the per head cost of a Public School day-pupil.
Its not strange then, that we've just lived through the greatest period of exam inflation in English history, and employers are complaining that people are leaving school without the basic skills of being able to read or write or do arithmatic.
My Brother was a teacher (of science) in the state sector. He hated it so much he finally threw in the towel and asked for his papers. He left at Christmas after 18 years on and off (he took time out to travel), and he says these days it's much more like being a prison warder than a teacher.
Things will change, no doubt.
What is still heartening is that if you have enough money, you can still get a really good education. I suppose it's an incentive to join in the materialist frenzy and compete.
My own preference would be a proper education for all, along the lines of the Great Public Schools, but then we'd have no-one to sweep the streets, m'dear, and that simply wouldn't do. (And also, we couldn't afford it.)
Compulsory Latin for all - no reason why I should have been in the last generation to suffer it - if it made me unhappy it can jolly well make other children unhappy too.
But later on, it rather helped, and did contribute significantly to the happiest period of my life to date.