Does this damage children

oh, I see the thread has moved on to the grammar school -v- comprehensive school debate.

Well, at least where we live there was Hobson's Choice, none of that angst.

... but threads always wander and develop into something else.

We live in a grammar school area.one son took the test, untutored and was 3 marks off a pass. We could have appealed but chose not to. No problems at the local high school. Other son didn't take the test. Again no problems.

The ref. The mother is obviously a strong advocate of the Snowflake Generation (a term I hate but it does speak volumes). Whatever happened to sportsmanship. There's a lot of lessons learned on the sports field, one being life isn't always fair, but life has to be dealt with. In the children's sports I've been to see it isn't the children who are upset it's the parents.These parents take any pleasure in Sports Day away along with any happy memories that are retained for the rest of your life.

Iam64 Thanks for telling us your story and for your very kind comments. I am glad you were able to overcome the deficiencies of your schooling, and I am sorry you were badly served by the system when at school.

I know that a good Comprehensive school can contain all the best parts of a Grammar School education and much more and carry an ethos of pride for all the pupils. I have seen it in practice! It can make sure that opportunity is available to everyone and that no child suffers that terrible rejection and feeling that they are not good enough at the very young age of 11. The idea that you can decide at 11 years old what type of schooling will best suite a child and put them irreversibly into a system which will shape their whole life has been proved to be wrong. I said, Cyril Burt was a bad man! He lied about the data in his experiment upon which Grammar schools were created. By the way, don't tell me that children could move schools, because that is extremely difficult and painful.
Children, about 90% of the population, grow into adults who think they "failed" the 11+ and are not as clever as the elite, when in fact the whole system is so flawed no one knows which children have been given the wrong school.

It is so snobbish to think you can improve education by giving the best schools and a higher status to a small minority thereby dumping the vast majority of children into an ordinary "not-clever" lump. It's pure snobbery and ridiculously elitist. The stupid thing is, it does not, in the end, help the economy or the future work-force!

Good Comprehensives should be our goal, then every child can be encouraged to aim for excellence and every child may feel equally valued!

Life isn't perfect - this has to be learned. How many phone videos would referees have to watch if parents decided his 'call' was wrong? Can you imagine the shouting and arguing? Decisions won't always be what they want and it has to be accepted. I worked in a school; at one parent's assembly some certificates due to be handed out had not been received, and the Head explained that the children would get them at the the following week's assembly. One mother went potty in the office, shouting and raving that her daughter was 'devastated'. This is what has to be dealt with when you have people who can't accept that a minor disappointment should be explained to the child, who then learns a few lessons like patience!

luzdoh - yes!

Good education for all. It should incorporate drama, art(s), life skills like cooking and changing plugs, managing money and of course, excellent academic education. It isn't difficult. The Scandi countries excel, why can't we?

The Scandi countries are much more egalitarian, which is why they are much more successful in many ways.

I know varian. I find it hard to believe I'm heading for 70 and my country remains locked into battles between what are called left and right but in reality, mean for me, sense and nonsense.

Following up on varian's comment, the Nordic model supports a comprehensive welfare state funded by high taxation.

According to what I've read, 81% of children have a working mother. Parents get 480 days paid parental leave per child, with men claiming about 24% of the parental leave taken.

According to a paper written in 2013 entitled The Education System of Nordic Countries: "The Nordic strategy for excellence in education is the construction of publicly funded comprehensive school systems, that don't require a selecting, tracking, nor streaming process for admission." Despite all the evidence that a selective system does not increase overall educational success, this government has recently provided over £300,000,000 for the expansion of the grammar school system. This at the same time as existing state schools are being starved of resources.

Along with proper health and social care and housing, the education system is crucial. But, as we know, all these public services cost money and it seems that many British people would not welcome the high taxes paid in the Scandinavian countries. The gap between the richest and the poorest in those countries is much narrower but I think people tend to be less community-minded in this country and therefore vote for what they believe suits them as individuals rather than what benefits the country as a whole.

Education is crucial but other social issues that impact on children are also important. Since 1991 Sweden has prohibited all TV advertising aimed at children under 12. It has tried to persuade the rest of Europe to do the same (I don't know if it has made any progress) and advertisers are naturally very active in trying to counter this.

The only reason a child is going to be damaged by losing out on a winning place, fairly or unfairly, is if parents totally embarrass them by behaving like divas. No child is more valuable than another (no matter what we think about our own treasures) Tiger/helicopter parents do far greater damage than good imo. Love your child and give them the resilience to live in the world independently..don't let them feel they are so special rues do not apply to them! Competitive spirit has to go hand in hand with sportsmanship!

life skills like cooking and changing plugs,
I went to a grammar school and did not learn how to cook or how to change a plug.
I learned how to cook through necessity but am ashamed to say that I still don't know how to change a plug.

However, I am adept at pushing mercury around a laboratory bench and other such essentials of life such as how to cause an explosion in a lab (thanks, Miss S).

That said, I was once closely involved with a kids 'underdog' football team. I am not interested in football generally..however when the team got to the semi finals I had to ban myself from the touchline as I could feel myself getting too passionate about who won..only time in my life I felt truly compatitive!

Well, here’s another side shoot to this thread. The apparent success of education in Scandinavian countries could well be down to 40 years of enforced sterilisation in the mid 20th century of “inferior” types.

Only those considered of above intelligence were allowed to breed. So it is their decscendents who make up the vast majority of children in Sweden in particular.

Perhaps this has had some effect upon attainment today?

www.lausti.com/articles/es_6/eugenics.htm

Eugenics was practised right up until the 1970s.

Alwas been a core extreme group in Scandanavia society

Iam64 Are you saying that you believe left and right are artificial constructs that prevent sensible compromise, and that it is merely bloody mindedness that prevents the parties from coming together in a spirit of co-operation? Or maybe I have misunderstood you?

If I haven't, I disagree. The Conservative Party has stated on many occasions that it believes in a small state, low taxation, light touch regulation, a reduction in union powers, widespread privatisation and competition in our public services, etc, etc. It also seems to adhere to the notion that the market is self-regulating and can be left to its own devices.

The Labour Party believes very differently on all these issues and would find it very difficult to compromise in relation to such core beliefs. Personally speaking, I wouldn't really want it to roll over and "play nice" with people who seem determined to overturn all the progress that has been made since the 1950s.

It appears that there is much more political co-operation and consensus in the Scandinavian countries and that many of the objectives of the Labour Party have already been achieved there so there would presumably be much more common ground between the various parties. From Wikipedia:

"The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation's 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.

"Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7% and Finland at 48.6% reflect very high public spending.

One key reason for public spending is the large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have greater job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark).

"In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany." [goodness only knows what the wage/employment benefit ratio is in the UK - much lower than this I would think]

"Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.

"Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are high: Sweden (44.1%), Denmark (45.9%) and Finland (44.1%). The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those with medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels."

My limited knowledge would led me to think that both L & R in Scandanavia see the positive benefits of having a healthy well educated electorate. The govs. have also ensured their countries are as self sufficient as possible: good use of natural resources, good investment of national funds and the development of a culture that understands the benefits to all citizens of high taxation in return for quality services.

Re the eugenics issue, I think there is divided opinion as to whether you can change the average IQ of a whole population by means of eliminating "inferior" genes.

I seem to recall that IQs tend to return to the mean - that is that very high scoring parents do not go on to produce progressively higher scoring offspring. At some stage IQs start to drop and return to the mean. There is, of course, also the environmental side of the equation which, again, is a hotly debated topic. And, of course, IQ is a very narrow way of assessing a person's value to society.

Me too, Jalima1108. I can sing 'O Come all ye Faithfull' in Latin but I can't change a plug either.

Faithful. I didn't learn to type, either.

Rosina

Ha ha me too Rosina!
Luzdoh I aree with every word of your post.
By the way at last I can post again on my phone. Thanks for sorting it out GN!

Gallia est omnis divisa in partis tris .....
but don't ask me any more

I'm another person who admires the way things are going socially and politically in the Nordic/Scandinavian countries. But individually they have much smaller populations than the UK, or even England. Maybe Scotland or Wales or N. Ireland is comparable. So in practice there's less diversity, and political changes can be effected more quickly?
Just an idea, I've been thinking this for a while. I'm especially an admirer of Norway, since their bravery in WW2. Sweden and Denmark also set an example in those days.