Surprising statistic for the day, courtesy of the ONS. As of 2013, fewer than average people are in persistent income poverty in the UK than in the EU as a whole and of the EU15 states, only the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland do better:
Schools in Sutton, Buckinghamshire and Dorset confirmed they would look to expand in light of the government decision. While councils in Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead confirmed that they were expecting schools in their region to submit applications for permissions to set up satellite sites.
Education experts told the Telegraph they also know of schools in Torbay, Medway and Lincolnshire who may now attempt to take advantage of the ruling.
A quick gander of Wikipedia tells me that 38 of the 152 local education authorities contain state Grammar schools, so the scope for expansion is considerable.
Also, I wonder whether, with a good number of the grammars now being academies or trusts, whether we will see a grammar school somewhere trying to open a satellite on the edge of or even across an LEA boundary.
When I was a kid, our (geographically small) LEA started to implement a masterplan whereby all the comprehensive schools in the middle of the LEA would close, and the remaining 10 schools would sit on the borders of neighbouring LEAs, attracting students from those places. It was barking mad, of course, but my point is that 'parking the tanks' in terms of school location is not unknown.
On another note, hundred up
Congratulations on your century .
I'm expecting Lucy Powell to do another impression of Sideshow Bob in the field of rakes. It's another bear trap for Labour. If they oppose, then they're even less likely to recover in the South.
I think Mr Innocent made a good point earlier. Labour don't, for now, want to be in power.
Do you think amongst the wider electorate, support for grammar schools follows that clean a left/right split? I am PB Labour, and broadly sympathetic to rebuilding a grammar system, as long as we are innovative about how we do it, and don't just ape 1950s attitudes.
My wife who is a floating voter with the occasionally vicious turn of Daily Mail phrasing, is dead against - scarred by a spell in a grammar school sixth form where she felt actively discriminated against compared to 'our girls'.
I should have been clearer - I'm not talking about the electorate, oh deary me, no. I'm talking about the Labour party.
I'm one of the lucky ones - a poor child who went to an excellent grammar school and then university - social mobility in action I guess.
I know fellow pupils who were also scarred by the experience (snobs abounded in our school) and bright (though non-academic) children who were let down by our local secondary moderns. Our views on education are always going to be coloured by our own subjective experiences.
I went to a grammar school and benefited hugely from it. I'd be fully supportive of their reintroduction if two problems can be tackled: * How do you ensure that grammars are open to all. In other words, how do you prevent wealthier parents buying their kids into the schools through tutoring? We know that currently grammar school intakes do not reflect the demographics of the places in which they are situated. * What happens to the 75% to 80% of kids that do not get into grammar schools? The last time we had a grammar system, those that ended up int he second tier (that's how it was regarded) mostly left school at fifteen and went into the kinds of jobs that no longer exist. Kids that do not go to grammars are just as entitled to the best teaching and facilities as those that do. And there has to be a way into grammars for late developers.
Schools in Sutton, Buckinghamshire and Dorset confirmed they would look to expand in light of the government decision. While councils in Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead confirmed that they were expecting schools in their region to submit applications for permissions to set up satellite sites
..... Also, I wonder whether, with a good number of the grammars now being academies or trusts, whether we will see a grammar school somewhere trying to open a satellite on the edge of or even across an LEA boundary.
When I was a kid, our (geographically small) LEA started to implement a masterplan whereby all the comprehensive schools in the middle of the LEA would close, and the remaining 10 schools would sit on the borders of neighbouring LEAs, attracting students from those places. It was barking mad, of course, but my point is that 'parking the tanks' in terms of school location is not unknown.
On another note, hundred up
Congratulations on your century .
I'm expecting Lucy Powell to do another impression of Sideshow Bob in the field of rakes. It's another bear trap for Labour. If they oppose, then they're even less likely to recover in the South.
I think Mr Innocent made a good point earlier. Labour don't, for now, want to be in power.
Do you think amongst the wider electorate, support for grammar schools follows that clean a left/right split? I am PB Labour, and broadly sympathetic to rebuilding a grammar system, as long as we are innovative about how we do it, and don't just ape 1950s attitudes.
My wife who is a floating voter with the occasionally vicious turn of Daily Mail phrasing, is dead against - scarred by a spell in a grammar school sixth form where she felt actively discriminated against compared to 'our girls'.
Good education is what counts. I am doubtful about grammar schools because they were set up as a part of a tripartite system and that was never properly established and is now totally missing. The world that system was meant to serve has disappeared as well. How could it work now when we would also be discriminating against teachers and thus teaching standards? Is there anything wrong with streaming in comprehensives? Does that happen and if so does it work? All students should be pushed, the bright as much as the less bright. If teaching tought nothing more than motivation it would be doing a good job.
The issue though should be decided, as in Kent, locally and its fair enough the govt supporting a local decision.
Surprising statistic for the day, courtesy of the ONS. As of 2013, fewer than average people are in persistent income poverty in the UK than in the EU as a whole and of the EU15 states, only the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland do better:
This is clearly not the Tory party of yore. They'll be wailing and gnashing their teeth down at CCHQ at this lamentable failure to grind the faces of the poor. Cameron = Blue Labour .
Schools in Sutton, Buckinghamshire and Dorset confirmed they would look to expand in light of the government decision. While councils in Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead confirmed that they were expecting schools in their region to submit applications for permissions to set up satellite sites
..... Also, I wonder whether, with a good number of the grammars now being academies or trusts, whether we will see a grammar school somewhere trying to open a satellite on the edge of or even across an LEA boundary.
When I was a kid, our (geographically small) LEA started to implement a masterplan whereby all the comprehensive schools in the middle of the LEA would close, and the remaining 10 schools would sit on the borders of neighbouring LEAs, attracting students from those places. It was barking mad, of course, but my point is that 'parking the tanks' in terms of school location is not unknown.
On another note, hundred up
Congratulations on your century .
I'm expecting Lucy Powell to do another impression of Sideshow Bob in the field of rakes. It's another bear trap for Labour. If they oppose, then they're even less likely to recover in the South.
I think Mr Innocent made a good point earlier. Labour don't, for now, want to be in power.
Do you think amongst the wider electorate, support for grammar schools follows that clean a left/right split? I am PB Labour, and broadly sympathetic to rebuilding a grammar system, as long as we are innovative about how we do it, and don't just ape 1950s attitudes.
My wife who is a floating voter with the occasionally vicious turn of Daily Mail phrasing, is dead against - scarred by a spell in a grammar school sixth form where she felt actively discriminated against compared to 'our girls'.
Good education is what counts. I am doubtful about grammar schools because they were set up as a part of a tripartite system and that was never properly established and is now totally missing. The world that system was meant to serve has disappeared as well. How could it work now when we would also be discriminating against teachers and thus teaching standards? Is there anything wrong with streaming in comprehensives? Does that happen and if so does it work? All students should be pushed, the bright as much as the less bright. If teaching tought nothing more than motivation it would be doing a good job.
The issue though should be decided, as in Kent, locally and its fair enough the govt supporting a local decision.
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Anger and hatred are probably more effective means to motivate people politically than a desire to do good.
Mr K, I wouldn’t get too enthusiastic about the crimes of one side or the other in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea myself. TBH I’m not sure which side is worse! Like many Westerners I was originally sympathetic towardss Israel ..... homeland for themselves and all that ...... but much of that sympathy has gone (been forfeited?) as a result of heir treatment of the Arabs, some at least of whom are, as I understand it, descendants of those who managed to stay after the Diaspora.
I’ve got to go out now, but later on I’ll have a look and see whether coals of fire have been thrown in my direction!
It'll be interesting to see how accurate the Canadian polls are when the votes are counted. They're currently giving a lead of about 5 points to the Liberals over the Conservatives, but the latter are well ahead with older voters who are more likely to vote, as in the UK.
Schools in Sutton, Buckinghamshire and Dorset confirmed they would look to expand in light of the government decision. While councils in Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead confirmed that they were expecting schools in their region to submit applications for permissions to set up satellite sites
..... Also, I wonder whether, with a good number of the grammars now being academies or trusts, whether we will see a grammar school somewhere trying to open a satellite on the edge of or even across an LEA boundary.
On another note, hundred up
Congratulations on your century .
I'm expecting Lucy Powell to do another impression of Sideshow Bob in the field of rakes. It's another bear trap for Labour. If they oppose, then they're even less likely to recover in the South.
I think Mr Innocent made a good point earlier. Labour don't, for now, want to be in power.
Do you think amongst the wider electorate, support for grammar schools follows that clean a left/right split? I am PB Labour, and broadly sympathetic to rebuilding a grammar system, as long as we are innovative about how we do it, and don't just ape 1950s attitudes.
My wife who is a floating voter with the occasionally vicious turn of Daily Mail phrasing, is dead against - scarred by a spell in a grammar school sixth form where she felt actively discriminated against compared to 'our girls'.
Good education is what counts. I am doubtful about grammar schools because they were set up as a part of a tripartite system and that was never properly established and is now totally missing. The world that system was meant to serve has disappeared as well. How could it work now when we would also be discriminating against teachers and thus teaching standards? Is there anything wrong with streaming in comprehensives? Does that happen and if so does it work? All students should be pushed, the bright as much as the less bright. If teaching tought nothing more than motivation it would be doing a good job.
The issue though should be decided, as in Kent, locally and its fair enough the govt supporting a local decision.
They streamed at the school my lot went to.
Which makes it grammar school like, since there is selection. Was it popular?
Surprising statistic for the day, courtesy of the ONS. As of 2013, fewer than average people are in persistent income poverty in the UK than in the EU as a whole and of the EU15 states, only the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland do better:
This is clearly not the Tory party of yore. They'll be wailing and gnashing their teeth down at CCHQ at this lamentable failure to grind the faces of the poor. Cameron = Blue Labour .
Conversely, the British are rather more likely than average to have spent at least a year in income poverty:
11 is far too young to judge academic outcome. Ability is not binary, it is a spectrum that varies between subjects. It creates division within families and society as whole. There are proven alternatives.
Schools in Sutton, Buckinghamshire and Dorset confirmed they would look to expand in light of the government decision. While councils in Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead confirmed that they were expecting schools in their region to submit applications for permissions to set up satellite sites
..... Also, I wonder whether, with a good number of the grammars now being academies or trusts, whether we will see a grammar school somewhere trying to open a satellite on the edge of or even across an LEA boundary.
On another note, hundred up
Congratulations on your century .
I'm expecting Lucy Powell to do another impression of Sideshow Bob in the field of rakes. It's another bear trap for Labour. If they oppose, then they're even less likely to recover in the South.
I think Mr Innocent made a good point earlier. Labour don't, for now, want to be in power.
Do you think amongst the wider electorate, support for grammar schools follows that clean a left/right split? I am PB Labour, and broadly sympathetic to rebuilding a grammar system, as long as we are innovative about how we do it, and don't just ape 1950s attitudes.
My wife who is a floating voter with the occasionally vicious turn of Daily Mail phrasing, is dead against - scarred by a spell in a grammar school sixth form where she felt actively discriminated against compared to 'our girls'.
Good education is what counts. I am doubtful about grammar schools because they were set up as a part of a tripartite system and that was never properly established and is now totally missing. The world that system was meant to serve has disappeared as well. How could it work now when we would also be discriminating against teachers and thus teaching standards? Is there anything wrong with streaming in comprehensives? Does that happen and if so does it work? All students should be pushed, the bright as much as the less bright. If teaching tought nothing more than motivation it would be doing a good job.
The issue though should be decided, as in Kent, locally and its fair enough the govt supporting a local decision.
They streamed at the school my lot went to.
Which makes it grammar school like, since there is selection. Was it popular?
It seems to be standard practice here. All the schools do it from year ten onwards.
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Anger and hatred are probably more effective means to motivate people politically than a desire to do good.
Anger at poor social conditions: yes. But the Victorian do-gooders achieved a great deal through a desire to do good. Do-gooding has been unfairly pilloried.
But anger and hatred of people leads to nothing worthwhile other than attacks and violence and ultimately death. It's the difference between a Robert Owen setting up a profitable mill which tried to treat its workers well and a Stalin causing a famine and killing people in order to proceed with industrialization. The moral difference is immense.
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Anger and hatred are probably more effective means to motivate people politically than a desire to do good.
Anger at poor social conditions: yes. But the Victorian do-gooders achieved a great deal through a desire to do good. Do-gooding has been unfairly pilloried.
But anger and hatred of people leads to nothing worthwhile other than attacks and violence and ultimately death. It's the difference between a Robert Owen setting up a profitable mill which tried to treat its workers well and a Stalin causing a famine and killing people in order to proceed with industrialization. The moral difference is immense.
My impression is that Jeremy Corbyn's most enthusiastic supporters would prefer to emulate Stalin, rather than Robert Owen.
Surprising statistic for the day, courtesy of the ONS. As of 2013, fewer than average people are in persistent income poverty in the UK than in the EU as a whole and of the EU15 states, only the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland do better:
This is clearly not the Tory party of yore. They'll be wailing and gnashing their teeth down at CCHQ at this lamentable failure to grind the faces of the poor. Cameron = Blue Labour .
Conversely, the British are rather more likely than average to have spent at least a year in income poverty:
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Anger and hatred are probably more effective means to motivate people politically than a desire to do good.
Anger at poor social conditions: yes. But the Victorian do-gooders achieved a great deal through a desire to do good. Do-gooding has been unfairly pilloried.
But anger and hatred of people leads to nothing worthwhile other than attacks and violence and ultimately death. It's the difference between a Robert Owen setting up a profitable mill which tried to treat its workers well and a Stalin causing a famine and killing people in order to proceed with industrialization. The moral difference is immense.
My impression is that Jeremy Corbyn's most enthusiastic supporters would prefer to emulate Stalin, rather than Robert Owen.
And that is the cul de sac which Labour has ended up in. For all Mr Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on Corbyn, until Labour reverts to its Methodist rather than its Marxist roots, it does not deserve consideration as a serious party of government or opposition. IMO.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
On topic: Yes, I agree that Clinton looks pretty much a shoo-in for the nomination, given that it is now very late for anyone serious to challenge her. The email scandal is the only obstacle to that, and it looks to me as though Joe Biden is simply setting himself up as a reserve candidate in case Hillary gets sent off.
There have been 11 wickets in 10 sessions so far. 5 sessions left to go. The pitch is dead flat and is unlikely to change too much in the next day and a half. 1/10 for the draw, free 10% return on your money in 28 hours....
My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
Do Grammars cost more (On a per pupil basis) than Comprehensives ?
The futility of Corbyn in three by elections. Collpasing in Cumbria, not in the game in Cambridgeshire, sweeping up in London Camberwell - where Labour already hold sway.
Green votes are particularly useless replacements for moderate, middle England, Labour ones
No. The Greens are significant in many middle England seats, where the middle-class Guardian/Independent vote is important - where they are irrelevant is Labour northern strongholds. If the Greens hadn't intervened in Broxtowe and say 60% of their supporters had gone Labour (anecdotally likely) we'd have held it in 2010 and the Tory majority would have halved in 2015. The Greens were a growing, existential threat to Labour in middle-class areas and now they aren't - it's one reason I voted Corbyn.
Well, I suppose Corbyn will stop Green voters making a difference to the result in such seats. After all, the Greens don't normally get 15,000 votes, which will be the size of the Tory majority in e.g. Stroud at the next election.
EDIT: and Root is on a positive charge now. If one of these gets out, maybe Bayliss should send in Butler and tell him to have a few free hits, get his confidence back.
Overall, though, the Greens are strongest in places that are already good for Labour. Inner London, and other urban areas with lots of students and public sector workers.
Indeed and Palmer draws a silly conclusion based on one variable changing as a result of Corbyn drawing back extreme left-wingers while ignoring other just as likely, variables of Labour losing the votes of moderates in middle England. It's similar to the nonsense about tax credits - take an extreme example and ignore all the other changes - tax allowance, NMW, very low inflation, increased employment, etc.
Just running through the seats where the Greens won 10%+ in May. Islington N and S, Hackney N and S, Holborn & St. Pancras, Deptford, Camberwell, Bristol S & W, Oxford E, Norwich S, Sheffield SE, Liverpool Riverside, York, all solid for Labour.
Then Totnes, Bath, and Buckingham, where Labour doesn't feature. And Brighton Pavilion, which is solidly left-wing.
They also got nearly 10,000 votes in the Isle of Wight, which surprised me given the conservatism (small c) of the Island.
There's a strong hipster/noserings/dreadlocks community in parts.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
The systematic creation of a new two-tier system of education is not the answer.
But the question currently being asked is: should we allow some of the country's top schools to take on more pupils?
The futility of Corbyn in three by elections. Collpasing in Cumbria, not in the game in Cambridgeshire, sweeping up in London Camberwell - where Labour already hold sway.
Green votes are particularly useless replacements for moderate, middle England, Labour ones
No. The Greens are significant in many middle England seats, where the middle-class Guardian/Independent vote is important - where they are irrelevant is Labour northern strongholds. If the Greens hadn't intervened in Broxtowe and say 60% of their supporters had gone Labour (anecdotally likely) we'd have held it in 2010 and the Tory majority would have halved in 2015. The Greens were a growing, existential threat to Labour in middle-class areas and now they aren't - it's one reason I voted Corbyn.
Well, I suppose Corbyn will stop Green voters making a difference to the result in such seats. After all, the Greens don't normally get 15,000 votes, which will be the size of the Tory majority in e.g. Stroud at the next election.
EDIT: and Root is on a positive charge now. If one of these gets out, maybe Bayliss should send in Butler and tell him to have a few free hits, get his confidence back.
Overall, though, the Greens are strongest in places that are already good for Labour. Inner London, and other urban areas with lots of students and public sector workers.
Indeed and Palmer draws a silly conclusion based on one variable changing as a result of Corbyn drawing back extreme left-wingers while ignoring other just as likely, variables of Labour losing the votes of moderates in middle England. It's similar to the nonsense about tax credits - take an extreme example and ignore all the other changes - tax allowance, NMW, very low inflation, increased employment, etc.
Just running through the seats where the Greens won 10%+ in May. Islington N and S, Hackney N and S, Holborn & St. Pancras, Deptford, Camberwell, Bristol S & W, Oxford E, Norwich S, Sheffield SE, Liverpool Riverside, York, all solid for Labour.
Then Totnes, Bath, and Buckingham, where Labour doesn't feature. And Brighton Pavilion, which is solidly left-wing.
They also got nearly 10,000 votes in the Isle of Wight, which surprised me given the conservatism (small c) of the Island.
There's a strong hipster/noserings/dreadlocks community in parts.
Dogs on string. Plus a lot of relatively low paid workers on the island.
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Conservatism doesn't mean not giving a shit about others and those more unfortunate than yourself, despite the efforts of our opponents to paint us as such.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I don't think that's a suspicion but fact. My husband was educated in a grammar school in Cumbria. When he moved to London he saw all these parents paying through the nose to provide their children with more or less the same education he had had for free 20 years earlier. No wonder people want them. Who wouldn't want to avoid crippling school fees if they could.
As you and SO say, the real issue is how we educate those who do not get into grammar or private schools so that they can get the best education they can. That's where the failings have been and that's where the focus should be, not least because education should not primarily be about social mobility but about giving each and every child the best education possible so that they can decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives, whether that involves going up, down or sideways in the social scale.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility
I think that's slightly unfair. The proponents of grammar schools are usually looking back to a time when grammar schools most certainly improved educational standards and social mobility for bright working-class kids. Furthermore they were, on the whole, excellent schools. Closing them was an unmitigated disaster - why close your best schools?
And I'm not sure that even in narrow terms the argument that the middle classes buy their way into grammar school excellence works as an argument against them. That happens only because grammar school places have been so massively rationed that price has, unsurprisingly, become a discriminating factor. Basic economics at work.
However, times have changed, and we're not going back to a world where most girls became housewives, most boys went into industrial jobs requiring skilled training but not necessarily academic education, and only 2% of the population went to university. The 1944 model doesn't apply to the modern world. It's time to move on from that rather sterile debate.
It'll be interesting to see how accurate the Canadian polls are when the votes are counted. They're currently giving a lead of about 5 points to the Liberals over the Conservatives, but the latter are well ahead with older voters who are more likely to vote, as in the UK.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility
I think that's slightly unfair. The proponents of grammar schools are usually looking back to a time when grammar schools most certainly improved educational standards and social mobility for bright working-class kids. Furthermore they were, on the whole, excellent schools. Closing them was an unmitigated disaster - why close your best schools?
And I'm not sure that even in narrow terms the argument that the middle classes buy their way into grammar school excellence works as an argument against them. That happens only because grammar school places have been so massively rationed that price has, unsurprisingly, become a discriminating factor. Basic economics at work.
However, times have changed, and we're not going back to a world where most girls became housewives, most boys went into industrial jobs requiring skilled training but not necessarily academic education, and only 2% of the population went to university. The 1944 model doesn't apply to the modern world. It's time to move on from that rather sterile debate.
The futility of Corbyn in three by elections. Collpasing in Cumbria, not in the game in Cambridgeshire, sweeping up in London Camberwell - where Labour already hold sway.
Green votes are particularly useless replacements for moderate, middle England, Labour ones
No. The Greens are significant in many middle England seats, where the middle-class Guardian/Independent vote is important - where they are irrelevant is Labour northern strongholds. If the Greens hadn't intervened in Broxtowe and say 60% of their supporters had gone Labour (anecdotally likely) we'd have held it in 2010 and the Tory majority would have halved in 2015. The Greens were a growing, existential threat to Labour in middle-class areas and now they aren't - it's one reason I voted Corbyn.
Well, I suppose Corbyn will stop Green voters making a difference to the result in such seats. After all, the Greens don't normally get 15,000 votes, which will be the size of the Tory majority in e.g. Stroud at the next election.
EDIT: and Root is on a positive charge now. If one of these gets out, maybe Bayliss should send in Butler and tell him to have a few free hits, get his confidence back.
Overall, though, the Greens are strongest in places that are already good for Labour. Inner London, and other urban areas with lots of students and public sector workers.
That result of c.80% for Labour and the Greens in Camberwell sort of explains how so many of their blogging and social media residents were so confused by the GE2015 result.
It shows again how much we are Two Nations, divided not by class, but by outlook.
In England, at least, there are probably three: 40% who lean centre-right, 25% who are solidly left and a further 15% who are centrist floaters.
There are a further 20% who couldn't give a toss. The trouble is the 25% shout so loudly they make it seem an even split.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I think you can replace middle class with every parent. I think every parent would want their child to go to a grammar school. What we need is a system that doesn't favour those children who's parents can afford private tuition or preparatory school. How schools can do that is the key question, my view is aptitude testing, but I'm sure the likes Guardian would crucify any school which dared to introduce serious aptitude tests for 11 year old children as entrance exams. I know QE have changed their test since I took it to the standard bloody essay and a bit of maths.
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Conservatism doesn't mean not giving a shit about others and those more unfortunate than yourself, despite the efforts of our opponents to paint us as such.
I wholeheartedly agree. No political party has a monopoly on virtue. And any party hack that claims it does is proving the precise opposite of what they are claiming.
I just think it a great pity that Labour should have turned its back on the best of its past.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I have no problem with academic selection by ability, and special schools for the gifted. Indeed, we tacitly already accept this with music, sporting and dance academies. Just not for academics.
This is entirely accepted as uncontroversial in other countries - my wife, for instance, is completely baffled as to why it's an issue here. She's from Bulgaria.
I had to explain that it's really to do with class. And an English suspicion of intellect.
There are challenges and criticisms to be made about grammar schools and their selection method but, in principle, nothing wrong with it.
Re Grammar Schools, every one of them is over subscribed, parents like them and there is a reason for that. The sooner we can rid society of envy and spite the better.
I'm nigh on certain that some of the "Common entrance" papers I did at prep school looked tougher than some of today's GCSEs.
On Grammars, I think rigorous streaming in comps/acadamies/whatever is the correct solution. Some kids develop later than 11. The big danger with this is that soft left teachers/staff don't implement the rigourous streaming and daren't send little Johnny down a stream when he fluffs his key stage 3 maths.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility
I think that's slightly unfair. The proponents of grammar schools are usually looking back to a time when grammar schools most certainly improved educational standards and social mobility for bright working-class kids. Furthermore they were, on the whole, excellent schools. Closing them was an unmitigated disaster - why close your best schools?
And I'm not sure that even in narrow terms the argument that the middle classes buy their way into grammar school excellence works as an argument against them. That happens only because grammar school places have been so massively rationed that price has, unsurprisingly, become a discriminating factor. Basic economics at work.
However, times have changed, and we're not going back to a world where most girls became housewives, most boys went into industrial jobs requiring skilled training but not necessarily academic education, and only 2% of the population went to university. The 1944 model doesn't apply to the modern world. It's time to move on from that rather sterile debate.
I think a lot of people who speak in favour of them are people like me who went to them and come from working class or immigrant backgrounds. My education has allowed me to compete with people who went to the best independent and public schools in the country. I was able to do this despite my background.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I have no problem with academic selection by ability, and special schools for the gifted. Indeed, we tacitly already accept this with music, sporting and dance academies. Just not for academics.
This is entirely accepted as uncontroversial in other countries - my wife, for instance, is completely baffled as to why it's an issue here. She's from Bulgaria.
I had to explain that it's really to do with class. And an English suspicion of intellect.
There are challenges and criticisms to be made about grammar schools and their selection method but, in principle, nothing wrong with it.
I have no problems with the concept of academic selection. But if on the whole it doesn't work to improve educational standards - and the evidence suggests that it doesn't - we shouldn't do it.
As I noted previously, the problems with the educational system in Britain are at the bottom end of the scale, not the top. No one has come up with any sensible suggestion as to how grammar schools would make any difference to those problems.
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Anger and hatred are probably more effective means to motivate people politically than a desire to do good.
Anger at poor social conditions: yes. But the Victorian do-gooders achieved a great deal through a desire to do good. Do-gooding has been unfairly pilloried.
But anger and hatred of people leads to nothing worthwhile other than attacks and violence and ultimately death. It's the difference between a Robert Owen setting up a profitable mill which tried to treat its workers well and a Stalin causing a famine and killing people in order to proceed with industrialization. The moral difference is immense.
My impression is that Jeremy Corbyn's most enthusiastic supporters would prefer to emulate Stalin, rather than Robert Owen.
And that is the cul de sac which Labour has ended up in. For all Mr Palmer's attempts to put a gloss on Corbyn, until Labour reverts to its Methodist rather than its Marxist roots, it does not deserve consideration as a serious party of government or opposition. IMO.
A pretty succinct summary. My uncle was an ex coal mining Methodist preacher.
''Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.''
Does Hislop mention that these Victorian do-gooders were required to pay very little tax of any kind, so its not surprising they had a bucket of money lying around.
Gladstones government, incredibly, had a budget equivalent to 3billion pounds in today's money, an indication of how the state has ballooned in the interim.
The futility of Corbyn in three by elections. Collpasing in Cumbria, not in the game in Cambridgeshire, sweeping up in London Camberwell - where Labour already hold sway.
Green votes are particularly useless replacements for moderate, middle England, Labour ones
No. The Greens are significant in many middle England seats, where the middle-class Guardian/Independent vote is important - where they are irrelevant is Labour northern strongholds. If the Greens hadn't intervened in Broxtowe and say 60% of their supporters had gone Labour (anecdotally likely) we'd have held it in 2010 and the Tory majority would have halved in 2015. The Greens were a growing, existential threat to Labour in middle-class areas and now they aren't - it's one reason I voted Corbyn.
You are making the same mistake that extreme right-wingers in the Tory Party (and Kippers) were drawing in saying the Tories needed to run to the right to add the UKIP total to the Tory total.
2010 Broxtowe: Con 39.0 Lab 38.3 LD 16.9 BNP 2.7 UKIP 2.3 Green 0.8
Greens were the least significant tertiary party there not the most important. In order for you to have held on in 2010 you'd have had to win every single Green voter to get to a rounding error majority of 0.1% and that's assuming you'd lose no exist Lab voters or drive any LDs or Kippers etc to the Tory camp.
2015 Broxtowe Con 45.2 Lab 37.2 UKIP 10.6 LD 4.0 Green 2.9 Independent 0.1
Again the Greens were the least significant real party there. Even if you'd won every single Green voter you'd have still lost and that's before losing any Lab voters or driving any LDs or Kippers etc into the Tories arms.
The idea the Greens are the answer as evidenced by Broxtowe is just not credible.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I have no problem with academic selection by ability, and special schools for the gifted. Indeed, we tacitly already accept this with music, sporting and dance academies. Just not for academics.
This is entirely accepted as uncontroversial in other countries - my wife, for instance, is completely baffled as to why it's an issue here. She's from Bulgaria.
I had to explain that it's really to do with class. And an English suspicion of intellect.
There are challenges and criticisms to be made about grammar schools and their selection method but, in principle, nothing wrong with it.
I have no problems with the concept of academic selection. But if on the whole it doesn't work to improve educational standards - and the evidence suggests that it doesn't - we shouldn't do it.
As I noted previously, the problems with the educational system in Britain are at the bottom end of the scale, not the top. No one has come up with any sensible suggestion as to how grammar schools would make any difference to those problems.
Its a reality of life that somebody will always need to sweep the streets and wash pots, it doesn't mean these people shouldn't be paid properly and respected.
As I noted previously, the problems with the educational system in Britain are at the bottom end of the scale, not the top. No one has come up with any sensible suggestion as to how grammar schools would make any difference to those problems.
The problems are with the bottom 25% by income, not by innate ability.
Oh and Mr Palmer your maths is wrong if you'd won 60% of Greens in 2010 you'd have still lost. 60% of the Green's 2010 0.8% is less than Soubry's then 0.7% majority.
The least academically able have absolute fortunes spent on them, I know a few teachers who work in this area - and they are doing very well for themselves.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I think you can replace middle class with every parent. I think every parent would want their child to go to a grammar school. What we need is a system that doesn't favour those children who's parents can afford private tuition or preparatory school. How schools can do that is the key question, my view is aptitude testing, but I'm sure the likes Guardian would crucify any school which dared to introduce serious aptitude tests for 11 year old children as entrance exams. I know QE have changed their test since I took it to the standard bloody essay and a bit of maths.
From my perspective in HE, I really don't care too much about what you call the school or how/who administers it the issue is about stretching the academically best pupils. We're finding that there seems to be a 'cap' on the quality/originality of thinking by pupils coming into HE - they've been told that they are A* students and so they stop thinking (after all where else can they go?) As a result we don't get the outstanding students that we used to, which is frustrating as we can see the potential in the students that we do accept. There is room for a type of school (or part of a school) that nurtures and stretches gifted students but in terms of a systematic approach it's been off the political agenda for a while now.
Do any grammar schools operate streaming within themselves ? My (Private) school did it for maths only.
My old grammar school did. I thought all grammar schools did. I take the point of maths streaming, my class' maths teacher had to work his socks off to get us through. Top bloke.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility
I think that's slightly unfair. The proponents of grammar schools are usually looking back to a time when grammar schools most certainly improved educational standards and social mobility for bright working-class kids. Furthermore they were, on the whole, excellent schools. Closing them was an unmitigated disaster - why close your best schools?
And I'm not sure that even in narrow terms the argument that the middle classes buy their way into grammar school excellence works as an argument against them. That happens only because grammar school places have been so massively rationed that price has, unsurprisingly, become a discriminating factor. Basic economics at work.
However, times have changed, and we're not going back to a world where most girls became housewives, most boys went into industrial jobs requiring skilled training but not necessarily academic education, and only 2% of the population went to university. The 1944 model doesn't apply to the modern world. It's time to move on from that rather sterile debate.
The least academically able have absolute fortunes spent on them, I know a few teachers who work in this area - and they are doing very well for themselves.
Ditto. I know of a school with 3 or 4 in a class, the staff:pupil ratio is vastly different to mainstream schools, it costs more than 3x per annum to educate them. Heaven knows how we created or will solve this problem.
The least academically able have absolute fortunes spent on them, I know a few teachers who work in this area - and they are doing very well for themselves.
Ditto. I know of a school with 3 or 4 in a class, the staff:pupil ratio is vastly different to mainstream schools, it costs more than 3x per annum to educate them. Heaven knows how we created or will solve this problem.
My friend who works in this area could (And was) providing an excellent education in chemistry to I assume 'average' pupils. I know it's not very PC to say it but I think he's completely wasted in his job - the money is alot better than regular teaching though, so I can't blame him ^^;
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Anger and hatred are probably more effective means to motivate people politically than a desire to do good.
Anger at poor social conditions: yes. But the Victorian do-gooders achieved a great deal through a desire to do good. Do-gooding has been unfairly pilloried.
But anger and hatred of people leads to nothing worthwhile other than attacks and violence and ultimately death. It's the difference between a Robert Owen setting up a profitable mill which tried to treat its workers well and a Stalin causing a famine and killing people in order to proceed with industrialization. The moral difference is immense.
My impression is that Jeremy Corbyn's most enthusiastic supporters would prefer to emulate Stalin, rather than Robert Owen.
It's amazing they still belt out the Red Flag in public with fist-pumping enthusiasm, a song that celebrates martyrdom, snearing at traitors and cowards, and bloody revolution.
It would be like David Cameron leading Tory conference in No Surrender to the IRA or Would You Like A Pasty Supper Bobby Sands?
England have batted 150 overs for the loss of only three wickets. There's around 150 overs left in the match. Can they get to 1,000 runs? Can Cook beat Lara's Test batting record?
Cook apparently just tried out a reverse sweep, not one of his usual efforts - I guess after 3 and a half days in the sun he's started to go a bit loopy.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I have no problem with academic selection by ability, and special schools for the gifted. Indeed, we tacitly already accept this with music, sporting and dance academies. Just not for academics.
This is entirely accepted as uncontroversial in other countries - my wife, for instance, is completely baffled as to why it's an issue here. She's from Bulgaria.
I had to explain that it's really to do with class. And an English suspicion of intellect.
There are challenges and criticisms to be made about grammar schools and their selection method but, in principle, nothing wrong with it.
I have no problems with the concept of academic selection. But if on the whole it doesn't work to improve educational standards - and the evidence suggests that it doesn't - we shouldn't do it.
As I noted previously, the problems with the educational system in Britain are at the bottom end of the scale, not the top. No one has come up with any sensible suggestion as to how grammar schools would make any difference to those problems.
A mix of schooling provision is needed, but I wouldn't ban any one type. The prejudice against academic ability in this country is visceral and cultural, and it holds our whole country back.
I favour the controversial 'let parents and children vote with their feet' method.
A child's academic attainment is principally driven be their parents - that is the overwhelming factor.
Parents focused on academic attainment both participate more in their children's education both inside and outside of school hours (by applying pressure to teachers and by offering additional support to the child) and also participate in fund raising for their child's schools. This gives schools with concentrations of pushy parents a leg up as they have additional funds over a school that is receiving identical LEA funding.
To help the children and schools at the bottom it is imperative to spread the pushy parents around schools rather than concentrating them in isolated institutions.
I have been watching on BBC iPlayer the first part of Ian Hislop's documentary series on Victorian Do-Gooders. He talks about Robert Owen in Lanark and Robert Dawson in Birmingham and the social aims they had - of people looking after each other and the societies/cities they lived in - is an attractive and worthwhile one.
Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.
The question for the current Labour party is why their party - whose roots lie in people like Robert Owen and others like him - is currently so unattractive - indeed positively repellent to - people like me and SO and others who do think that we have a responsibility to help others worse off than ourselves and that we're all better off as a result.
Anger and hatred are probably more effective means to motivate people politically than a desire to do good.
Anger at poor social conditions: yes. But the Victorian do-gooders achieved a great deal through a desire to do good. Do-gooding has been unfairly pilloried.
But anger and hatred of people leads to nothing worthwhile other than attacks and violence and ultimately death. It's the difference between a Robert Owen setting up a profitable mill which tried to treat its workers well and a Stalin causing a famine and killing people in order to proceed with industrialization. The moral difference is immense.
My impression is that Jeremy Corbyn's most enthusiastic supporters would prefer to emulate Stalin, rather than Robert Owen.
It's amazing they still belt out the Red Flag in public with fist-pumping enthusiasm, a song that celebrates martyrdom, snearing at traitors and cowards, and bloody revolution.
It would be like David Cameron leading Tory conference in No Surrender to the IRA or Would You Like A Pasty Supper Bobby Sands?
England have batted 150 overs for the loss of only three wickets. There's around 150 overs left in the match. Can they get to 1,000 runs? Can Cook beat Lara's Test batting record?
I note that Malik hit 4 sixes in this match (and Cook none this year at all), but his strike rate is really not very much quicker than Cook's in this game. You cling to stats for interest in a game like this.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I have no problem with academic selection by ability, and special schools for the gifted. Indeed, we tacitly already accept this with music, sporting and dance academies. Just not for academics.
This is entirely accepted as uncontroversial in other countries - my wife, for instance, is completely baffled as to why it's an issue here. She's from Bulgaria.
I had to explain that it's really to do with class. And an English suspicion of intellect.
There are challenges and criticisms to be made about grammar schools and their selection method but, in principle, nothing wrong with it.
I have no problems with the concept of academic selection. But if on the whole it doesn't work to improve educational standards - and the evidence suggests that it doesn't - we shouldn't do it.
As I noted previously, the problems with the educational system in Britain are at the bottom end of the scale, not the top. No one has come up with any sensible suggestion as to how grammar schools would make any difference to those problems.
I favour the controversial 'let parents and children vote with their feet' method.
A child's academic attainment is principally driven be their parents - that is the overwhelming factor.
Parents focused on academic attainment both participate more in their children's education both inside and outside of school hours (by applying pressure to teachers and by offering additional support to the child) and also participate in fund raising for their child's schools. This gives schools with concentrations of pushy parents a leg up as they have additional funds over a school that is receiving identical LEA funding.
To help the children and schools at the bottom it is imperative to spread the pushy parents around schools rather than concentrating them in isolated institutions.
Yes, but the pushy parents want their children to be educated with each other. Not with the kids whose parents don't care whether they fail, and often don't care about their behaviour at school either.
We'll always have selection. Some schools are better than others. Parents want the best schools for their children. 'No selection' really means selection by chance at best, or house price at worst. That's direct selection by wealth, as much as any private school. Poor but intelligent children stand a better chance with selection by ability.
The cricket sounds as exciting as the singles chart when Bryan Adams was number 1 for 16 weeks in a row.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
I have no problem with academic selection by ability, and special schools for the gifted. Indeed, we tacitly already accept this with music, sporting and dance academies. Just not for academics.
This is entirely accepted as uncontroversial in other countries - my wife, for instance, is completely baffled as to why it's an issue here. She's from Bulgaria.
I had to explain that it's really to do with class. And an English suspicion of intellect.
There are challenges and criticisms to be made about grammar schools and their selection method but, in principle, nothing wrong with it.
I have no problems with the concept of academic selection. But if on the whole it doesn't work to improve educational standards - and the evidence suggests that it doesn't - we shouldn't do it.
As I noted previously, the problems with the educational system in Britain are at the bottom end of the scale, not the top. No one has come up with any sensible suggestion as to how grammar schools would make any difference to those problems.
I favour the controversial 'let parents and children vote with their feet' method.
That requires wealth.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
The least academically able have absolute fortunes spent on them, I know a few teachers who work in this area - and they are doing very well for themselves.
Ditto. I know of a school with 3 or 4 in a class, the staff:pupil ratio is vastly different to mainstream schools, it costs more than 3x per annum to educate them. Heaven knows how we created or will solve this problem.
My friend who works in this area could (And was) providing an excellent education in chemistry to I assume 'average' pupils. I know it's not very PC to say it but I think he's completely wasted in his job - the money is alot better than regular teaching though, so I can't blame him ^^;
A pal of mine is head of one such school, he despairs. He says he's not sure what his role is because its not about educating these children. But he shrugs and says the moneys very good, which I think is yyour point.
For PC reasons this subject can't be discussed, but he is able to provide stats that clearly map out the future of these children, we all know what lies ahead. Essentially we are wasting £millions each year, I don't know the answer but I do know the problem must be addressed.
In my 70s comp we had streaming. The top stream, about 150 kids, was openly called 'the grammar stream'. After streaming there was setting for maths and English.
The set 1 grammar stream maths people did the O level a year early then mostly did double maths (pure and applied) at A level. There were only about 10 of them though.
two of them went on to get firsts in extremely difficult sums at Cambridge.
An excellent David Brooks piece about the Republicans, which can equally be read as a warning for the current Labour Party:
"Basically, the party abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism. Republicans came to see themselves as insurgents and revolutionaries, and every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own."
England have batted 150 overs for the loss of only three wickets. There's around 150 overs left in the match. Can they get to 1,000 runs? Can Cook beat Lara's Test batting record?
Edit: spoke too soon. Root gone for 85. 426/4
Surely they'll declare if they hit perhaps 700 ?
With Cook 330 not out? Not sure. Logically there should be a declaration half-an-hour before lunch tomorrow, but on this pitch no-one would begrudge Cook going after Hutton and Lara.
Didn't realise there was a difference between streaming/setting...
On that note, the Germans had Siztenbleiben[sp], which means that if you fail end of year exams you have to resit that year. Or, at least, they did when I learnt German at school.
A child's academic attainment is principally driven be their parents - that is the overwhelming factor.
Parents focused on academic attainment both participate more in their children's education both inside and outside of school hours (by applying pressure to teachers and by offering additional support to the child) and also participate in fund raising for their child's schools. This gives schools with concentrations of pushy parents a leg up as they have additional funds over a school that is receiving identical LEA funding.
To help the children and schools at the bottom it is imperative to spread the pushy parents around schools rather than concentrating them in isolated institutions.
Yes, because sending the children who want to learn to the rubbish schools is really going to encourage the feral ones intent on disruption to knuckle down and work.
It's a very noble idea, but pointless unless educational establishments are allowed to boot out the small minority who wreck learning for everyone else, and pack them off to some kind of reform school.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
''Today is the last day it's on iPlayer so do catch it if you can.''
Does Hislop mention that these Victorian do-gooders were required to pay very little tax of any kind, so its not surprising they had a bucket of money lying around.
Gladstones government, incredibly, had a budget equivalent to 3billion pounds in today's money, an indication of how the state has ballooned in the interim.
So what? If you do have lots of money lying around you can spend it only on yourself or you could do something useful with it. That applies in every society, regardless of the applicable tax rate. There will always be people with money and it seems to me to be better to have a culture where those who are the "haves" - even after taxation - think it worthwhile to put their money to worthwhile use.
I really don't like the attitude which seeks to devalue or sneer at those who tried to do good on the basis that they weren't paying enough tax, judged by today's standards.
A lot of chat on twitter today about a 'tory voter' who confronted Amber Rudd on QT last night on tax credits.
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
This is how the supposedly impartial BBC draws attention to it.
BBC Politics ✔ @BBCPolitics A Tory voter in the audience of the BBC's Question Time launches an impassioned attack on Conservative minister... http://bbc.in/1ZHVN2T
We'll always have selection. Some schools are better than others. Parents want the best schools for their children. 'No selection' really means selection by chance at best, or house price at worst. That's direct selection by wealth, as much as any private school. Poor but intelligent children stand a better chance with selection by ability.
The cricket sounds as exciting as the singles chart when Bryan Adams was number 1 for 16 weeks in a row.
Put it this way: that's exactly what my wife and I will do.
If we can get a scholarship to a brilliant public school, great. If not and we can afford it, unlikely, we'll pay to go private. If not, we'll try and move slap bang next to a very good state school.
Failing that, we'll do the best we can and help educate at home and pay for private tuition.
Now, for some reasons, the plethora of morons that inhabit the Left have a real problem with parents doing that for their kids - the most natural thing there is.
A lot of chat on twitter today about a 'tory voter' who confronted Amber Rudd on QT last night on tax credits.
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
Surely if you're going to vote on self interest, unless you're a pensioner then you logically should generally go with Labour if you're taking from the 'benefits' denoted section of the Gov't pie ?
A child's academic attainment is principally driven be their parents - that is the overwhelming factor.
Parents focused on academic attainment both participate more in their children's education both inside and outside of school hours (by applying pressure to teachers and by offering additional support to the child) and also participate in fund raising for their child's schools. This gives schools with concentrations of pushy parents a leg up as they have additional funds over a school that is receiving identical LEA funding.
To help the children and schools at the bottom it is imperative to spread the pushy parents around schools rather than concentrating them in isolated institutions.
Yes, because sending the children who want to learn to the rubbish schools is really going to encourage the feral ones intent on disruption to knuckle down and work.
It's a very noble idea, but pointless unless educational establishments are allowed to boot out the small minority who wreck learning for everyone else, and pack them off to some kind of reform school.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
A child's academic attainment is principally driven be their parents - that is the overwhelming factor.
Parents focused on academic attainment both participate more in their children's education both inside and outside of school hours (by applying pressure to teachers and by offering additional support to the child) and also participate in fund raising for their child's schools. This gives schools with concentrations of pushy parents a leg up as they have additional funds over a school that is receiving identical LEA funding.
To help the children and schools at the bottom it is imperative to spread the pushy parents around schools rather than concentrating them in isolated institutions.
Yes, but the pushy parents want their children to be educated with each other. Not with the kids whose parents don't care whether they fail, and often don't care about their behaviour at school either.
You need a critical mass of parents who care about their childrens' education, and are strongly committed to the school.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
A lot of chat on twitter today about a 'tory voter' who confronted Amber Rudd on QT last night on tax credits.
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
Isn't everyone to the right of Corbyn a Tory now?
Does anyone actually have a worked example of how someone working for as long as they can get free childcare will be affected? My impression (from afar, admittedly) is that there's lots of changes happening in the next couple of years and lots that have happened in the last few with regard to personal allowances, minimum wage, working hours limits, childcare provision and tax credits. Unemployment is also well down and productivity rising.
How many people will actually be badly worse off by the changes in the round, or are people either looking at the tax credits change in isolation or focussing on the 1% edge case who for example continues to work 16 hours a week when this hard limit no longer exists..?
A lot of chat on twitter today about a 'tory voter' who confronted Amber Rudd on QT last night on tax credits.
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
This is how the supposedly impartial BBC draws attention to it.
BBC Politics ✔ @BBCPolitics A Tory voter in the audience of the BBC's Question Time launches an impassioned attack on Conservative minister... http://bbc.in/1ZHVN2T
Impartial doesn't mean ignoring the facts of a given situation. If the report of the exchange is accurate then I'm unsure what your complaint is ?
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
My ex-girlfriend (before I met my wife) did her PGCE placement in a multi-ethnic inner-city state school in Southampton. One of the history lessons was titled 'there ain't no black in the union jack'
She told me the teacher had asked the class, 'what do we call the Elizabethans?'
Comments
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRbRn_oXAAAyIvB.png
My wife who is a floating voter with the occasionally vicious turn of Daily Mail phrasing, is dead against - scarred by a spell in a grammar school sixth form where she felt actively discriminated against compared to 'our girls'.
I should have been clearer - I'm not talking about the electorate, oh deary me, no. I'm talking about the Labour party.
I'm one of the lucky ones - a poor child who went to an excellent grammar school and then university - social mobility in action I guess.
I know fellow pupils who were also scarred by the experience (snobs abounded in our school) and bright (though non-academic) children who were let down by our local secondary moderns. Our views on education are always going to be coloured by our own subjective experiences.
* How do you ensure that grammars are open to all. In other words, how do you prevent wealthier parents buying their kids into the schools through tutoring? We know that currently grammar school intakes do not reflect the demographics of the places in which they are situated.
* What happens to the 75% to 80% of kids that do not get into grammar schools? The last time we had a grammar system, those that ended up int he second tier (that's how it was regarded) mostly left school at fifteen and went into the kinds of jobs that no longer exist. Kids that do not go to grammars are just as entitled to the best teaching and facilities as those that do. And there has to be a way into grammars for late developers.
My wife who is a floating voter with the occasionally vicious turn of Daily Mail phrasing, is dead against - scarred by a spell in a grammar school sixth form where she felt actively discriminated against compared to 'our girls'.
Good education is what counts. I am doubtful about grammar schools because they were set up as a part of a tripartite system and that was never properly established and is now totally missing. The world that system was meant to serve has disappeared as well. How could it work now when we would also be discriminating against teachers and thus teaching standards?
Is there anything wrong with streaming in comprehensives? Does that happen and if so does it work? All students should be pushed, the bright as much as the less bright. If teaching tought nothing more than motivation it would be doing a good job.
The issue though should be decided, as in Kent, locally and its fair enough the govt supporting a local decision.
Is there anything wrong with streaming in comprehensives? Does that happen and if so does it work? All students should be pushed, the bright as much as the less bright. If teaching tought nothing more than motivation it would be doing a good job.
The issue though should be decided, as in Kent, locally and its fair enough the govt supporting a local decision.
They streamed at the school my lot went to.
I’ve got to go out now, but later on I’ll have a look and see whether coals of fire have been thrown in my direction!
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html
Which makes it grammar school like, since there is selection. Was it popular?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRbYeehWsAAW9yW.png
The bottom of the pile seems to be much more fluid in Britain than elsewhere.
11 is far too young to judge academic outcome.
Ability is not binary, it is a spectrum that varies between subjects.
It creates division within families and society as whole.
There are proven alternatives.
It seems to be standard practice here. All the schools do it from year ten onwards.
But anger and hatred of people leads to nothing worthwhile other than attacks and violence and ultimately death. It's the difference between a Robert Owen setting up a profitable mill which tried to treat its workers well and a Stalin causing a famine and killing people in order to proceed with industrialization. The moral difference is immense.
England in a good position if they can get a lead of 250 to 300 over Pakistan going into the final day:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/34297193
Plus getting Pakistan out in a day and 250 runs would be tough indeed.
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
1/10 for the draw, free 10% return on your money in 28 hours....
There's a strong hipster/noserings/dreadlocks community in parts.
But the question currently being asked is: should we allow some of the country's top schools to take on more pupils?
As you and SO say, the real issue is how we educate those who do not get into grammar or private schools so that they can get the best education they can. That's where the failings have been and that's where the focus should be, not least because education should not primarily be about social mobility but about giving each and every child the best education possible so that they can decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives, whether that involves going up, down or sideways in the social scale.
And I'm not sure that even in narrow terms the argument that the middle classes buy their way into grammar school excellence works as an argument against them. That happens only because grammar school places have been so massively rationed that price has, unsurprisingly, become a discriminating factor. Basic economics at work.
However, times have changed, and we're not going back to a world where most girls became housewives, most boys went into industrial jobs requiring skilled training but not necessarily academic education, and only 2% of the population went to university. The 1944 model doesn't apply to the modern world. It's time to move on from that rather sterile debate.
The Liberal problem is the precise opposite - those are the only places they seriously feature.
NOM should be heavily odds-on.
Very simple. They go to comprehensives instead. Which, as their supporters constantly tell us, are better anyway.
There are a further 20% who couldn't give a toss. The trouble is the 25% shout so loudly they make it seem an even split.
I just think it a great pity that Labour should have turned its back on the best of its past.
This is entirely accepted as uncontroversial in other countries - my wife, for instance, is completely baffled as to why it's an issue here. She's from Bulgaria.
I had to explain that it's really to do with class. And an English suspicion of intellect.
There are challenges and criticisms to be made about grammar schools and their selection method but, in principle, nothing wrong with it.
On Grammars, I think rigorous streaming in comps/acadamies/whatever is the correct solution. Some kids develop later than 11. The big danger with this is that soft left teachers/staff don't implement the rigourous streaming and daren't send little Johnny down a stream when he fluffs his key stage 3 maths.
As I noted previously, the problems with the educational system in Britain are at the bottom end of the scale, not the top. No one has come up with any sensible suggestion as to how grammar schools would make any difference to those problems.
Does Hislop mention that these Victorian do-gooders were required to pay very little tax of any kind, so its not surprising they had a bucket of money lying around.
Gladstones government, incredibly, had a budget equivalent to 3billion pounds in today's money, an indication of how the state has ballooned in the interim.
2010 Broxtowe:
Con 39.0
Lab 38.3
LD 16.9
BNP 2.7
UKIP 2.3
Green 0.8
Greens were the least significant tertiary party there not the most important. In order for you to have held on in 2010 you'd have had to win every single Green voter to get to a rounding error majority of 0.1% and that's assuming you'd lose no exist Lab voters or drive any LDs or Kippers etc to the Tory camp.
2015 Broxtowe
Con 45.2
Lab 37.2
UKIP 10.6
LD 4.0
Green 2.9
Independent 0.1
Again the Greens were the least significant real party there. Even if you'd won every single Green voter you'd have still lost and that's before losing any Lab voters or driving any LDs or Kippers etc into the Tories arms.
The idea the Greens are the answer as evidenced by Broxtowe is just not credible.
It would be like David Cameron leading Tory conference in No Surrender to the IRA or Would You Like A Pasty Supper Bobby Sands?
Edit: spoke too soon. Root gone for 85. 426/4
And, wicket?
I favour the controversial 'let parents and children vote with their feet' method.
Parents focused on academic attainment both participate more in their children's education both inside and outside of school hours (by applying pressure to teachers and by offering additional support to the child) and also participate in fund raising for their child's schools. This gives schools with concentrations of pushy parents a leg up as they have additional funds over a school that is receiving identical LEA funding.
To help the children and schools at the bottom it is imperative to spread the pushy parents around schools rather than concentrating them in isolated institutions.
Gove strikes again - Unpopular criminal courts’ charge reviewed after widespread concerns among magistrates http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article4587210.ece
My Mum will be so happy! Getting these abolished has been her top priority for the last years, but she could get anyone in the DoJ to listen to her.
She even considered taking back the post she'd retired from a few years ago to force the issue through.
We'll always have selection. Some schools are better than others. Parents want the best schools for their children. 'No selection' really means selection by chance at best, or house price at worst. That's direct selection by wealth, as much as any private school. Poor but intelligent children stand a better chance with selection by ability.
The cricket sounds as exciting as the singles chart when Bryan Adams was number 1 for 16 weeks in a row.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
For PC reasons this subject can't be discussed, but he is able to provide stats that clearly map out the future of these children, we all know what lies ahead. Essentially we are wasting £millions each year, I don't know the answer but I do know the problem must be addressed.
The set 1 grammar stream maths people did the O level a year early then mostly did double maths (pure and applied) at A level. There were only about 10 of them though.
two of them went on to get firsts in extremely difficult sums at Cambridge.
"Basically, the party abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism. Republicans came to see themselves as insurgents and revolutionaries, and every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/the-republicans-incompetence-caucus.html
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
On that note, the Germans had Siztenbleiben[sp], which means that if you fail end of year exams you have to resit that year. Or, at least, they did when I learnt German at school.
It's a very noble idea, but pointless unless educational establishments are allowed to boot out the small minority who wreck learning for everyone else, and pack them off to some kind of reform school.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week.
The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
I really don't like the attitude which seeks to devalue or sneer at those who tried to do good on the basis that they weren't paying enough tax, judged by today's standards.
BBC Politics
✔
@BBCPolitics
A Tory voter in the audience of the BBC's Question Time launches an impassioned attack on Conservative minister... http://bbc.in/1ZHVN2T
If we can get a scholarship to a brilliant public school, great. If not and we can afford it, unlikely, we'll pay to go private. If not, we'll try and move slap bang next to a very good state school.
Failing that, we'll do the best we can and help educate at home and pay for private tuition.
Now, for some reasons, the plethora of morons that inhabit the Left have a real problem with parents doing that for their kids - the most natural thing there is.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Does anyone actually have a worked example of how someone working for as long as they can get free childcare will be affected? My impression (from afar, admittedly) is that there's lots of changes happening in the next couple of years and lots that have happened in the last few with regard to personal allowances, minimum wage, working hours limits, childcare provision and tax credits. Unemployment is also well down and productivity rising.
How many people will actually be badly worse off by the changes in the round, or are people either looking at the tax credits change in isolation or focussing on the 1% edge case who for example continues to work 16 hours a week when this hard limit no longer exists..?
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
My ex-girlfriend (before I met my wife) did her PGCE placement in a multi-ethnic inner-city state school in Southampton. One of the history lessons was titled 'there ain't no black in the union jack'
She told me the teacher had asked the class, 'what do we call the Elizabethans?'
"Racists", they replied.