I'm bored with this grammar school debate on both sides. It's clear the current system is failing 'bright but poor' children. Grammar schools in the past offered these children a lifeline which is now denied, and that impacts social mobility.
We need do something to change that. Bringing back Grammar schools is probably not the best way, but we need to do something different.
The bright kids need to be given an education commensurate with their abilities and, very importantly, not be in the same classroom as a bunch of scummy yobs who will disrupt the lesson and hold back the able. Not a separate school, just a separate classroom. Mixed ability classes has to be the most stupid idea in education ever proposed and, amazingly, far too often adopted.
Classroom behaviour is a function of the quality of the school’s leadership, not the backgrounds of the kids who happen to be there.
I agree that the right sort of leadership in the school can reduce the level of classroom disruption. But isn't it better to get the troublemakers out of the way, so that those who want to learn can learn, and the teacher can focus on teaching rather than classroom management?
Absolutely, any effective approach to classroom discipline will involve the removal of disruptive kids.
Oh look. The places where there are Grammar schools in existence are the places are generally the most in favour of them whilst the places that have not had the benefit of having Grammar schools and so are most ignorant about them are the most anti.
Riddle me this: Is all this grammar schools stuff in the papers this morning a diversion from the fact hthe government doesn't seem to have a ******* clue what they are going to do about Brexit?
Oh look. The places where there are Grammar schools in existence are the places are generally the most in favour of them whilst the places that have not had the benefit of having Grammar schools and so are most ignorant about them are the most anti.
Oh look. The places where there are Grammar schools in existence are the places are generally the most in favour of them whilst the places that have not had the benefit of having Grammar schools and so are most ignorant about them are the most anti.
Or alternatively, Areas with Grammar schools want a greater proportion of their kids going to Grammar schools, and lesser chance of failing the 11 plus and being sent to a Sec Modern. Ideally 100% of their children would go.
Oh look. The places where there are Grammar schools in existence are the places are generally the most in favour of them whilst the places that have not had the benefit of having Grammar schools and so are most ignorant about them are the most anti.
Like Immigration...
That's an often quoted myth. A lot of the strongest UKIP voting areas had either experienced high migration or were populated by large numbers of people who had left urban areas to avoid it. Clacton for example is full of ex Eastenders.
Their choice but presumably they just made similar choices to the remainer voting middle classes - and chose to live in less diverse areas. Clacton isn't Twickenham - it's probably more diverse though!
Mr. B, indeed. He's also out-driven Hamilton so far this year. I think backing Bottas for the win each way may be worth a look (depending on odds, of course).
Wish he were topping the driver's race, as he should be.
BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems. The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems. The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
The problems for the Tories are that these seats were last contested on the day the only time Tories have won a majority in the last 27 years.
Lower turnout and 9 years into government usually means a high hiding for the governing party.
And these elections will be held a few weeks after we've left the EU.
A hard/WTO Brexit and it'll be like holding a round of locals a few days after Black Wednesday.
Oh look. The places where there are Grammar schools in existence are the places are generally the most in favour of them whilst the places that have not had the benefit of having Grammar schools and so are most ignorant about them are the most anti.
Or alternatively, Areas with Grammar schools want a greater proportion of their kids going to Grammar schools, and lesser chance of failing the 11 plus and being sent to a Sec Modern. Ideally 100% of their children would go.
The number of grammar schools does not effect the pass rate for the 11+ which is set at a percentage of the relevant pupil population. What does happen is that some children who pass the 11+ still don't get to go to a Grammar because there are not enough places.
It’s maybe not appreciated that Grammar Schools have already received a funding boost from this government as a result of the National Funding Formula fiasco, at least in North Yorkshire.
Old funding arrangement, (numbers rounded): School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,500 Funding per pupil School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,000 fpp
New funding arrangement rules: Minimum £4,800 per pupil Minimum 1.5% increase per pupil
So, new funding levels: School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,800 ffp being +6% School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,075 ffp being +1.5%
So Grammar Schools are getting four times the increase in funding. And that, folks, is how the rebellion by backbench Shire Tories was bought off.
Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?
Middle Class parents want to avoid paying school fees for Tarquin and Jemima.
That’s one view... any others?
To improve social mobility by providing a route for the clever children of poor parents to receive a good education, achieve strong exam results, go to a Russel University and thence get a top job.
How do you go about giving those children the private tuition ahead of sitting the 11-plus? Otherwise, there is no level playing field.
In most areas that have Grammar schools most of the preparation is done in the feeder junior schools. It is the areas bordering Grammar school areas that have massive call on tutors. So Nottinghamshire where it abuts Lincolnshire has a huge number of private tutors. Far more than in Lincolnshire itself.
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
Self tutoring your kids!!!!
The horror! How dare parents take an interest in their children's education and help them to better themselves.
There's a lot of evidence that children's academic achievement correlates with parents involvement in education more than anything else.
If you don't care, then paying for your kids to go to The Hall in North London won't help. And if you do care, your kids will probably do fine at the local comprehensive.
What’s interesting there is that people in the counties that *have* grammar schools seem to be strongly in favour.
That’s a pretty good reason to keep them, even when the statistical evidence for them seems quite variable.
I went to the local comp in a rough neighbourhood. I’m bound to say it never did me any harm, but I don’t think it’s true. I would have benefited hugely from being sent to a selective school.
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
Self tutoring your kids!!!!
The horror! How dare parents take an interest in their children's education and help them to better themselves.
Of course good parents will do the best by their kids. The problem is how do you level the playing field for those children who had the misfortune to end up with feckless parents who couldn't give a toss?
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
Self tutoring your kids!!!!
The horror! How dare parents take an interest in their children's education and help them to better themselves.
Self tutoring is not unknown on the sink estates, I understand. Uncles, aunts who aren’t on such estates maybe often do What doesn’t happen there is parents paying for tutoring. Basically because they can’t.
Off topic, been having lots of problems accessing the site this morning! Ended up having to get a new password.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
It’s maybe not appreciated that Grammar Schools have already received a funding boost from this government as a result of the National Funding Formula fiasco, at least in North Yorkshire.
Old funding arrangement, (numbers rounded): School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,500 Funding per pupil School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,000 fpp
New funding arrangement rules: Minimum £4,800 per pupil Minimum 1.5% increase per pupil
So, new funding levels: School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,800 ffp being +6% School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,075 ffp being +1.5%
So Grammar Schools are getting four times the increase in funding. And that, folks, is how the rebellion by backbench Shire Tories was bought off.
Your calculations don't include pupil premium funding - which would of course be significantly greater in schools with 'high % deprivation' intake.
Is the policy of fifty years ago really relevant ? Rather a lot has changed since then.
Yes, because the current advocates of selection want to return to a golden age. However, the people actually living with its consequences at the time didn't regard it as so golden.
So if Liverpool sign Nabil Fekir from Lyon what do we think the headlines will be when he leaves Lyon for Liverpool and when he gets sent off playing for Liverpool?
On topic: peak X is a lazy metaphor (there is no reason why a political career should behave like the world's oil reserves), and anyway peak oil predictions do have a way of confounding the prophets. So:
"... the peak of production will soon be passed, possibly within 3 years. ... There are many well-informed geologists and engineers who believe that the peak in the production of natural petroleum in this country will be reached by 1921 and who present impressive evidence that it may come even before 1920." - David White, chief geologist, United States Geological Survey (1919)
“The average middle-aged man of today will live to see the virtual exhaustion of the world’s supply of oil from wells,” - Victor C. Anderson, president of the Colorado School of Mines (1921)
BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems. The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
I think by the end of the LE 18 count, the city vs town narrative looked like something of an oversimplification. Round my way the Labour gains in Kirklees and Calderdale were hardly towny, but in industrial semi-rural chapelly wards and came both from LDs and Cons. Calderdale will almost certainly fall to Labour next year and Calder Valley looks a tricky Con GE defence from this distance. The councils themselves may be metropolitan, but a lot of WY is the best metropolitan comparator for a substantial number of Districts from Cumbria to Nottinghamshire.
I'm not sure there are nearly enough Labour wards being defended in the southern towns or in extremely leavy areas to fully compensate.
Con -400, LD +300, Lab +250, UKIP -150 (but back to retaining a number in double figures) for me.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
Self tutoring your kids!!!!
The horror! How dare parents take an interest in their children's education and help them to better themselves.
Of course good parents will do the best by their kids. The problem is how do you level the playing field for those children who had the misfortune to end up with feckless parents who couldn't give a toss?
Improving primary school education would be a step towards that, but fundamentally there is no substitute for good early years parenting.
d) Ask the government to delay Brexit and get a better deal
Conducted under AV
If D wins then presumably we get a fresh referendum on the revised deal. Then if D wins again, we just go round in circles AND NEVER LEAVE. So D = C in disguise.
Is the policy of fifty years ago really relevant ? Rather a lot has changed since then.
Yes, because the current advocates of selection want to return to a golden age. However, the people actually living with its consequences at the time didn't regard it as so golden.
Do they ? Who outside of Kent is suggesting a return to what is a tarnished relic of the 'golden age' (i.e. the Kent system) ?
It’s maybe not appreciated that Grammar Schools have already received a funding boost from this government as a result of the National Funding Formula fiasco, at least in North Yorkshire.
Old funding arrangement, (numbers rounded): School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,500 Funding per pupil School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,000 fpp
New funding arrangement rules: Minimum £4,800 per pupil Minimum 1.5% increase per pupil
So, new funding levels: School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,800 ffp being +6% School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,075 ffp being +1.5%
So Grammar Schools are getting four times the increase in funding. And that, folks, is how the rebellion by backbench Shire Tories was bought off.
Your calculations don't include pupil premium funding - which would of course be significantly greater in schools with 'high % deprivation' intake.
Pupil premium funding is outside the scope of the National Funding Formula and doesn’t affect the calculations above.
Regarding next year's locals, in Leeds (and the other mets that did all-out due to boundary changes rather than thirds, I presume), the 3rd place winners are up for re-election next year. All else being equal, those from Labour should be secure as the risk of traffic light voting won't be there next year.
The following year, the second placed winners have to stand again. Only the first placers get to serve a full 4-year term.
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Can someone explain the problem that Grammar Schools are intended to solve?
The majority of our top professions are dominated by the privately educated?
In which case, increasing Grammar School provision will have no effect... unless you’re suggesting that the sons and daughters of top professionals could go to Grammar School rather than private school and still follow in the parent’s footsteps...
A bit of that certainly but a bright but poor child is more likely to get into a top profession and top university from a grammar school than any comprehensive school bar the most outstanding
Except that poor but bright kids are far less likely to get into Grammar school in the first place.
It is a primary school that Poor but bright kids fall behind the well off but dim, and the latter that get into Grammar school ahead of them. See the first graph in this report:
Obviously poor but bright kids may have less chance of getting into grammars than rich and bright kids due to generally more parental support for the latter. If you are dim you will not pass the grammar school entrance test however rich your parents are.
However poor but bright kids still get into grammars and once there have an excellent chance of going to Oxbridge or a top university or a top profession they would never have had in most comprehensives bar the most outstanding which tend to be in the most expensive catchment areas anyway and thus excluded to them
Peak Corbyn is a nursery comfort blanket for the sycophantic, the hubristic and the credulous – those that STILL afford far to much credence to the minutiae of midterm polling, despite the raft of evidence to the contrary in recent times.
It was Wilson who started the process of shutting down grammars, Heath admittedly did not stop it, Thatcher slowed the process as PM, more pupils started going to grammars under Major and Caneron
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
So if Liverpool sign Nabil Fekir from Lyon what do we think the headlines will be when he leaves Lyon for Liverpool and when he gets sent off playing for Liverpool?
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Well I've not analysed every vote in detail but I believe this is the case. I might do some analysis on it this weekend if I find the time..
d) Ask the government to delay Brexit and get a better deal
Conducted under AV
Any second referendum must be restricted to the Leave options, otherwise it undermines the result of the first referendum and politicians promises to honour the result of the first referendum..
It’s maybe not appreciated that Grammar Schools have already received a funding boost from this government as a result of the National Funding Formula fiasco, at least in North Yorkshire.
Old funding arrangement, (numbers rounded): School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,500 Funding per pupil School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,000 fpp
New funding arrangement rules: Minimum £4,800 per pupil Minimum 1.5% increase per pupil
So, new funding levels: School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,800 ffp being +6% School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,075 ffp being +1.5%
So Grammar Schools are getting four times the increase in funding. And that, folks, is how the rebellion by backbench Shire Tories was bought off.
Your calculations don't include pupil premium funding - which would of course be significantly greater in schools with 'high % deprivation' intake.
Pupil premium funding is outside the scope of the National Funding Formula and doesn’t affect the calculations above.
Sophistry, if you're talking about the social justice of education funding.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Well I've not analysed every vote in detail but I believe this is the case. I might do some analysis on it this weekend if I find the time..
I think what Mr Smithson is saying is that the collective analysis of the PB Tories and the wider commentariat is horse shit. He is just saying it in a more subtle and polite way than I am.
It was Wilson who started the process of shutting down grammars, Heath admittedly did not stop it, Thatcher slowed the process as PM, more pupils started going to grammars under Major and Caneron
Let's not rewrite history. Mrs Thatcher was Ed Sec under Heath, in which capacity she shut more grammars than anyone else. That extract from the Conservative manifesto about closing grammars was likely written by her as Shadow Ed Sec. The problem of course was secondary moderns rather than grammars per se.
d) Ask the government to delay Brexit and get a better deal
Conducted under AV
Any second referendum must be restricted to the Leave options, otherwise it undermines the result of the first referendum and politicians promises to honour the result of the first referendum..
So, you can argue voters didn't know what they signed up for when they voted to leave. You can certainly make the same arguement if you now ask them to sign up to vote for stay.
What will the EU be in 10-20-30 years? Can we have a guarantee no future powers over our current relationship will be transferred away?
d) Ask the government to delay Brexit and get a better deal
Conducted under AV
what happens then if either C or D win, and the EU say, No, you trigged A50, you're leaving?
Would never happen. The EU would consider our volte face the ultimate victory. And would welcome us back with open arms.
I'll need a little more than 'it'll be fine, don't worry'.
And under what terms. On the basis that things stay as they are now, or signing us up to every and all further integration?
Ideally so. Immediate transfer to the euro would be best.
Great, lets have that on the ballot, and we'll reject it. That;ll be the way to ensure we finally make our mind up to leave.
We'll never ditch the £.
I agree that inside the EU but outside the Euro would probably command a clear plurality of the options Mr Screaming Eagle lays out. Which would be a decent outcome for all.
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Yes, I was confused by this too.
I'm not all convinced by the idea that opposition parties have to smash in midterm locals, and in particular have to significantly outperform last time when they were *also in opposition and polling really well*, in order to stand a chance in the next generals. It reminds me a lot of "always take the Tories' best poll and Labour's worst". Has anyone actually done any statistical analysis that shows we should be placing much significance on the locals?
Peak Corbyn is a nursery comfort blanket for the sycophantic, the hubristic and the credulous – those that STILL afford far to much credence to the minutiae of midterm polling, despite the raft of evidence to the contrary in recent times.
But his personal poll rating for "best PM " has dropped substantially - that must be a concern ?
It was Wilson who started the process of shutting down grammars, Heath admittedly did not stop it, Thatcher slowed the process as PM, more pupils started going to grammars under Major and Caneron
Let's not rewrite history. Mrs Thatcher was Ed Sec under Heath, in which capacity she shut more grammars than anyone else. That extract from the Conservative manifesto about closing grammars was likely written by her as Shadow Ed Sec. The problem of course was secondary moderns rather than grammars per se.
Thatcher did not start the process of closing any grammars she just as Education Secretary did not oppose mainly Labour councils who closed them as was the Heath government policy
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
How does that contradict the comment you were responding to?
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
The biggest opponents of building more affordable homes are NIMBY LDs not Tories
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
It’s maybe not appreciated that Grammar Schools have already received a funding boost from this government as a result of the National Funding Formula fiasco, at least in North Yorkshire.
Old funding arrangement, (numbers rounded): School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,500 Funding per pupil School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,000 fpp
New funding arrangement rules: Minimum £4,800 per pupil Minimum 1.5% increase per pupil
So, new funding levels: School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,800 ffp being +6% School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,075 ffp being +1.5%
So Grammar Schools are getting four times the increase in funding. And that, folks, is how the rebellion by backbench Shire Tories was bought off.
Your calculations don't include pupil premium funding - which would of course be significantly greater in schools with 'high % deprivation' intake.
Pupil premium funding is outside the scope of the National Funding Formula and doesn’t affect the calculations above.
Sophistry, if you're talking about the social justice of education funding.
If one adds Pupil Premium funding, which remains flat, to the calculations, the uplift to Grammar Schools funding has been even higher in comparison to the local comprehensive.
Therefore, the point stands that the recent National Funding Formula has delivered a higher increase to Grammar Schools funding than to non-selective Schools in North Yorkshire.
BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems. The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
The problems for the Tories are that these seats were last contested on the day the only time Tories have won a majority in the last 27 years.
Lower turnout and 9 years into government usually means a high hiding for the governing party.
And these elections will be held a few weeks after we've left the EU.
A hard/WTO Brexit and it'll be like holding a round of locals a few days after Black Wednesday.
Not quite the Armageddon in London you were predicting though was it and hard Brexit is what many if not most Leave voters want
BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems. The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
The problems for the Tories are that these seats were last contested on the day the only time Tories have won a majority in the last 27 years.
Lower turnout and 9 years into government usually means a high hiding for the governing party.
And these elections will be held a few weeks after we've left the EU.
A hard/WTO Brexit and it'll be like holding a round of locals a few days after Black Wednesday.
Not quite the Armageddon in London you were predicting though was it and hard Brexit is what many if not most Leave voters want
My prediction was for the Tories to make net gains outside of London and net losses in London.
It was Wilson who started the process of shutting down grammars, Heath admittedly did not stop it, Thatcher slowed the process as PM, more pupils started going to grammars under Major and Caneron
Let's not rewrite history. Mrs Thatcher was Ed Sec under Heath, in which capacity she shut more grammars than anyone else. That extract from the Conservative manifesto about closing grammars was likely written by her as Shadow Ed Sec. The problem of course was secondary moderns rather than grammars per se.
Thatcher did not start the process of closing any grammars she just as Education Secretary did not oppose mainly Labour councils who closed them as was the Heath government policy
Are you suggesting that Thatcher opposed the education policy she implemented as Education Sec?
Today I have had to switch my browser from Internet Explorer to Mozilla FireFox in order to be able to read comments on PB.
This has not happened for me before. Anyone else with the same problem?
I use Chrome but Internet Explorer is pretty much finished anyway (is being phased out by MS in favour of Edge) so it makes sense to start transitioning to a new (and much, much better) browser soon.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
d) Ask the government to delay Brexit and get a better deal
Conducted under AV
Any second referendum must be restricted to the Leave options, otherwise it undermines the result of the first referendum and politicians promises to honour the result of the first referendum..
That'd be the advisory referendum? Which we have to accept even if we no longer want to?
BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems. The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
The problems for the Tories are that these seats were last contested on the day the only time Tories have won a majority in the last 27 years.
Lower turnout and 9 years into government usually means a high hiding for the governing party.
And these elections will be held a few weeks after we've left the EU.
A hard/WTO Brexit and it'll be like holding a round of locals a few days after Black Wednesday.
Not quite the Armageddon in London you were predicting though was it and hard Brexit is what many if not most Leave voters want
My prediction was for the Tories to make net gains outside of London and net losses in London.
I was right, 'twas ever thus
The Tories held all their councils in London Labour were targeting though and no London councils are up next year
It was Wilson who started the process of shutting down grammars, Heath admittedly did not stop it, Thatcher slowed the process as PM, more pupils started going to grammars under Major and Caneron
Let's not rewrite history. Mrs Thatcher was Ed Sec under Heath, in which capacity she shut more grammars than anyone else. That extract from the Conservative manifesto about closing grammars was likely written by her as Shadow Ed Sec. The problem of course was secondary moderns rather than grammars per se.
Thatcher did not start the process of closing any grammars she just as Education Secretary did not oppose mainly Labour councils who closed them as was the Heath government policy
Are you suggesting that Thatcher opposed the education policy she implemented as Education Sec?
She had to do as Heath told her, as I said since she became PM in 1979 we now have more pupils in grammar schools than then
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
How does that contradict the comment you were responding to?
As it refutes the idea grammars are anti aspriational
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
Comments
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
Their choice but presumably they just made similar choices to the remainer voting middle classes - and chose to live in less diverse areas. Clacton isn't Twickenham - it's probably more diverse though!
Wish he were topping the driver's race, as he should be.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/994866190177710080
Lower turnout and 9 years into government usually means a high hiding for the governing party.
And these elections will be held a few weeks after we've left the EU.
A hard/WTO Brexit and it'll be like holding a round of locals a few days after Black Wednesday.
The horror! How dare parents take an interest in their children's education and help them to better themselves.
Old funding arrangement, (numbers rounded):
School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,500 Funding per pupil
School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,000 fpp
New funding arrangement rules:
Minimum £4,800 per pupil
Minimum 1.5% increase per pupil
So, new funding levels:
School with low % deprivation intake, e.g. suburban Grammar - £4,800 ffp being +6%
School with high % deprivation intake, e.g. City comp - £5,075 ffp being +1.5%
So Grammar Schools are getting four times the increase in funding. And that, folks, is how the rebellion by backbench Shire Tories was bought off.
If you don't care, then paying for your kids to go to The Hall in North London won't help. And if you do care, your kids will probably do fine at the local comprehensive.
"A ruthless dispatch would illustrate a truth that too many people are slow to grasp, which is that Mrs May is stronger than she looks."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/may-not-only-can-but-should-sack-johnson-8mfh8qwvq
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/time-think-differently/trends-broader-determinants-health-early-childhood-development
There may be some side benefits but a lot of it is narrow exam passing material.
That’s a pretty good reason to keep them, even when the statistical evidence for them seems quite variable.
I went to the local comp in a rough neighbourhood. I’m bound to say it never did me any harm, but I don’t think it’s true. I would have benefited hugely from being sent to a selective school.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/994885115355566083?s=21
Off topic, been having lots of problems accessing the site this morning! Ended up having to get a new password.
What a twerp Lilico is. He should have his NZ passport rescinded.
Just like the Brexit vote, where nobody knows what they voted for, whichever side wins this vote will claim victory!!
a) Accept the deal and Leave
b) Reject the deal and Leave
c) Reject the deal and Remain in the EU
d) Ask the government to delay Brexit and get a better deal
Conducted under AV
Fekir off?
"... the peak of production will soon be passed, possibly within 3 years. ... There are many well-informed geologists and engineers who believe that the peak in the production of natural petroleum in this country will be reached by 1921 and who present impressive evidence that it may come even before 1920."
- David White, chief geologist, United States Geological Survey (1919)
“The average middle-aged man of today will live to see the virtual exhaustion of the world’s supply of oil from wells,”
- Victor C. Anderson, president of the Colorado School of Mines (1921)
Memo to Scott: these guys were experts.
I'm not sure there are nearly enough Labour wards being defended in the southern towns or in extremely leavy areas to fully compensate.
Con -400, LD +300, Lab +250, UKIP -150 (but back to retaining a number in double figures) for me.
The Age of the Enormo-Haddock is at hand.
Who outside of Kent is suggesting a return to what is a tarnished relic of the 'golden age' (i.e. the Kent system) ?
The following year, the second placed winners have to stand again. Only the first placers get to serve a full 4-year term.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
However poor but bright kids still get into grammars and once there have an excellent chance of going to Oxbridge or a top university or a top profession they would never have had in most comprehensives bar the most outstanding which tend to be in the most expensive catchment areas anyway and thus excluded to them
And under what terms. On the basis that things stay as they are now, or signing us up to every and all further integration?
This so-called 'polling' suffers from subsample hell.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
See that word 'believed'.....I do not think it means what you think it means...
This has not happened for me before. Anyone else with the same problem?
We'll never ditch the £.
What will the EU be in 10-20-30 years? Can we have a guarantee no future powers over our current relationship will be transferred away?
I'm not all convinced by the idea that opposition parties have to smash in midterm locals, and in particular have to significantly outperform last time when they were *also in opposition and polling really well*, in order to stand a chance in the next generals. It reminds me a lot of "always take the Tories' best poll and Labour's worst". Has anyone actually done any statistical analysis that shows we should be placing much significance on the locals?
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/how-brexit-shaped-the-local-election-vote/
Therefore, the point stands that the recent National Funding Formula has delivered a higher increase to Grammar Schools funding than to non-selective Schools in North Yorkshire.
The 11+ is effectively an iq test, if you are dim you will not pass it however rich your parents are and how much you are tutored
I was right, 'twas ever thus
Which we have to accept even if we no longer want to?