to all those who went to British schools
-
TudorLady — 16 years ago(February 12, 2010 03:12 AM)
Ok, how about,
State schools - Kids attend the government funded school nearest to where they live. Parents can apply for them to go to one they prefer (for whatever reason) outwith the catchment area, and if there are places available its 'first come, first served'
Catholic schools are run by the Church and funded by the Local Education Authority. (Many non-Cathoilc parents choose to send their children to these schools as they tend to have good records on discipline and exam results.)
Private/Independent schools - Parents pay fees to send their children to these schools. Many senior private schools and a few junior schools offer scholarships to attract bright or talented pupils to the school. They are usually awarded after a competitive examination, for academic, musical or artistic merit. Scholarships vary in value but rarely cover the whole fees. Scholarships normally cover a maximum of 50% of the fees.
Eton, near Windsor in England, north of Windsor Castle, is one of the original nine English public schools as defined by the Public Schools Act 1868. Enacted by the British Parliament to reform and regulate nine leading English boys' schools. These so-called public schools all grew out of ancient charity schools originally established to provide for a few poor scholars, but then, as today, educated many sons of the English upper and upper-middle classes on a fee-paying basis.
I believe it is wrong that children of well-off parents receive a better education simply because those parents can afford to pay for it. I'm not saying that all state schools are bad, far from it, but it cannot be denied that children from poorer backgrounds are at a distinct disadvantage through no fault of their own.
I trust I make myself obscure?
Waiting for my Mr Colin Firth Darcy -
Petronius Arbiter II — 16 years ago(February 12, 2010 11:53 AM)
No more obscure than my feeble attempt, on the other thread, to explain the difference between the English Puritans and the common American understanding of the meaning of the word "Puritan."
In fact, I think I may have made a mess of it. For example, some sources seem to be of the opinion that Cromwell strongly favored Congregationalism though as Lord Protector he didn't exactly govern that way which apparently just goes to show there's not a lot of universal agreement over who was a Puritan and who wasn't. -
freefall79 — 15 years ago(May 26, 2010 09:44 AM)
in my school, which is a working class english comprehensive we learned about cromwell but to the point that he was a good general and a total bastard! who banned christmas, music and theater and hated the irish with a passion.
Thunderbirds Aren't Slow -
vonmazur — 15 years ago(August 10, 2010 11:16 PM)
I went to Catholic Schools for 7 years, run by Nuns from the "old Sod"Even though the Irish did not like Cromwell, we learned about this warLater in High School in Connecticut, we got the full treatment, including the the Regicide Judges, and hiding in the cave in West Rock in New havenThree big Streets are named after them in NH, Goffe, Whaley and DixwellEach one is buried on the Green in NH, under each church, down in the ancient crypts. They are buried upright, facing Great Britainsupposedly!! The "Public" Schools in CT were far better than California, and at least as good as the Parochial Schools I attended. CA Public Schools were 3 years behind the Parochial when I attended them at Travis AFB and VacavilleI had to work hard in CT, the last two years of High School to keep up, after moving to CT from CA.
Dale
"If those sweethearts won't face German bulletsThey'll face french ones!" -
Dog112 — 15 years ago(November 19, 2010 09:10 PM)
my (American) grade school textbooks never referred to "the (American) Civil War," only to "the War Between the States." That's because the publishers want to sell books to schools in the Deep South
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+war
:
civil war
noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
http://tripatlas.com/Civil_war
:
A 'civil war' is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power.
A civil war is a war in which the combatants fight for control of the government. In the American "Civil War," there was no such fight. The war was fought because Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union through the use of offensive military action. He believed that state governments did not have the right to leave a federation they could not support and which did not support them.
The southern states did not want control of the government. They wanted to be free of it. Hence the name, "The War Between the States."
(Some 600,000 men died in this war, roughly 50% more than the number of Americans killed in WWII.)
Similarly, the American Revolutionary War is sometimes referred to in Britain as the "War for American Independence."
The War Between the States could be called the "War for the Independence of the Confederate States." It might well have, if the south had won.
. -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(February 08, 2011 02:12 PM)
Ah, the old "dictionary defense!"
Doesn't wash with me. I don't accept these dictionaries' definitions as being the only possible definitions of "civil war." I don't believe in prescriptive linguistics, and this situation is one good example of the many reasons I don't.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
Errington_92 — 10 years ago(January 15, 2016 07:27 AM)
Cromwell is still a sensitive topic among the British upper classes.
They're willing to allow textbooks and BBC shows to reveal the sins of past monarchs,
but the Commonwealth Period was something else. It was an attack on the principle of monarchy itself.
I agree completely. Unless you undertake history at University level, Cromwell and the Civil War/Commonwealth period is not discussed. The British Monarchy for most people has been deemed as a important national institution for so long, despite its injustices, that even today the suggestion of a Republic is seen as treacherous.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not. -
garywolfboy — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 06:46 AM)
There are too many Roman Catholics in high places now. Their sole remit seems to be Catholicism by stealth. It is particularly bad in Scotland at present. Air brushing protestantism wherever and however they can. Yet they continue to play the "oppressed chip on their shoulder" victims. However, try bringing up state funded sectarian, state funded schooling with them ( catholic schools)and watch them squirm.
The UK is a protestant nation. -
Squeeth2 — 9 years ago(May 05, 2016 10:52 PM)
We did the triangle of trade, the Great War, the agricultural revolution, workhouses, the industrial revolution. Nothing about the Big Two or the civil war after 1918 or the betrayal of the working class by the Liarbour Partei in 1922. We also did a bit on the Russian revolutions.
Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007, 2010. Clio, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.