Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
He's a right-winger G, not a one-nation Tory. Surely not your cup of tea?
He has spent far more than 'One Nation' Ken Clarke did as chancellor and Clarke also cut income tax unlike Sunak.
For some, it seems 'One Nation' is basically just another way of saying 'pro EU'
One Nation. As in caring for all voters. Not just the ones that pure souls like yourself consider to be worthy.
You are not the right person to be commenting on the nature of "One Nation". You aren't even "One Tory".
So on that basis who was more 'One Nation', Cameron and Osborne when pursuing austerity with the LDs or big spending Boris and Rishi? The latter on your definition
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 5m No further Covid movement expected in Whitehall today - "we're in a holding pattern" one insider says.
Every days delay is a victory against those working to get restrictions in before the dreaded organic drop in cases.
That probably puts us in the clear until 28 December (assuming the earliest Parliament can be recalled now is the 27th).
We should have a lot more data to test the 'overwhelm NHS' hypothesis at that point. For the pessimistic scenarios to hold true, we'd need London hospitalisations rising sharply, and London cases continuing to increase.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
But not all the bright but poor kids. And I had a good friend at Uni who was (a) bright and (b) ex Stowe.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
But not all the bright but poor kids. And I had a good friend at Uni who was (a) bright and (b) ex Stowe.
As opposed to nearly all the bright but poor kids who now end up at sink comprehensives.
Yes there are successful people who come out of Stowe, David Niven, Richard Branson, Henry Cavill and my old housemaster is its head but it has never been an academic powerhouse
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
All of them will still prioritise those in the catchment area who pass their entrance exam first before opening places to those who pass the exam outside their catchment area until they are full
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
But not all the bright but poor kids. And I had a good friend at Uni who was (a) bright and (b) ex Stowe.
As opposed to nearly all the bright but poor kids who now end up at sink comprehensives.
Yes there are successful people who come out of Stowe, David Niven, Richard Branson, Henry Cavill and my old housemaster is its head but it has never been an academic powerhouse
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
He's a right-winger G, not a one-nation Tory. Surely not your cup of tea?
He has spent far more than 'One Nation' Ken Clarke did as chancellor and Clarke also cut income tax unlike Sunak.
For some, it seems 'One Nation' is basically just another way of saying 'pro EU'
One Nation. As in caring for all voters. Not just the ones that pure souls like yourself consider to be worthy.
You are not the right person to be commenting on the nature of "One Nation". You aren't even "One Tory".
So on that basis who was more 'One Nation', Cameron and Osborne when pursuing austerity with the LDs or big spending Boris and Rishi? The latter on your definition
Boris and Rishi aren't big spending by choice - they are spending because unless they spend money they don't have any economy left to manage.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
And just in case you were thinking about it, no smiling and no fun.
I see Labour says it should have been announced last week. Makes you wonder why they didn’t demand it at the time
I think they are trying hard not to play politics on Covid related matters especially urgent ones regarding lockdowns. Which is a stand I don't think many people seem to grasp or care about.
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
He's a right-winger G, not a one-nation Tory. Surely not your cup of tea?
He has spent far more than 'One Nation' Ken Clarke did as chancellor and Clarke also cut income tax unlike Sunak.
For some, it seems 'One Nation' is basically just another way of saying 'pro EU'
One Nation. As in caring for all voters. Not just the ones that pure souls like yourself consider to be worthy.
You are not the right person to be commenting on the nature of "One Nation". You aren't even "One Tory".
So on that basis who was more 'One Nation', Cameron and Osborne when pursuing austerity with the LDs or big spending Boris and Rishi? The latter on your definition
Boris and Rishi aren't big spending by choice - they are spending because unless they spend money they don't have any economy left to manage.
Boris had a big spending manifesto in 2019 even before Covid
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
You know, apart from the paper this morning that says exactly that.
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
So they need ex grammar school pupils like Sir Keir Starmer to remove them? The only state educated party leaders who have beaten private school educated party leaders since WW2 were the grammar school educated Wilson when he beat the Eton educated Home in 1964 and the grammar school educated Thatcher when she beat the privately educated Foot in 1983
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
But not all the bright but poor kids. And I had a good friend at Uni who was (a) bright and (b) ex Stowe.
As opposed to nearly all the bright but poor kids who now end up at sink comprehensives.
Yes there are successful people who come out of Stowe, David Niven, Richard Branson, Henry Cavill and my old housemaster is its head but it has never been an academic powerhouse
George Monbiot is an alumnus of Stowe School as well, I think. I once had a friend who went there , and he often mentioned how shockingly beautiful the school's site was. He almost seemed more enamoured of that as much as anything else.
I see Labour says it should have been announced last week. Makes you wonder why they didn’t demand it at the time
I think they are trying hard not to play politics on Covid related matters especially urgent ones regarding lockdowns. Which is a stand I don't think many people seem to grasp or care about.
Oh they're very much playing politics, but the role they're trying to play is 'responsible grownup'.
Its a neat act, so long as you don't peak behind the curtain and see how shallow it all is.
Saying you're not playing politics is part of how they're playing it. Never believe anything until its officially denied.
Not convinced the Sturgeon/Drakeford measures are worth the faff tbh.
Just guidance, so my Hogmanay party will be going ahead.
"Get boosted by the bells, but don't have a party" - well what's the point of the vaccines then? I'm only trying to get a booster so I can get my life back to normal.
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
He's a right-winger G, not a one-nation Tory. Surely not your cup of tea?
He has spent far more than 'One Nation' Ken Clarke did as chancellor and Clarke also cut income tax unlike Sunak.
For some, it seems 'One Nation' is basically just another way of saying 'pro EU'
One Nation. As in caring for all voters. Not just the ones that pure souls like yourself consider to be worthy.
You are not the right person to be commenting on the nature of "One Nation". You aren't even "One Tory".
So on that basis who was more 'One Nation', Cameron and Osborne when pursuing austerity with the LDs or big spending Boris and Rishi? The latter on your definition
Boris and Rishi aren't big spending by choice - they are spending because unless they spend money they don't have any economy left to manage.
Boris had a big spending manifesto in 2019 even before Covid
Yes it contained all of HS2 and NPR - both of which have now been scrapped via documents with fundamental flaws within them that would have been caught if they had been checked by anyone who understood the issues being discussed.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
You know, apart from the paper this morning that says exactly that.
Appears to be a lot of “I see no ships” going around at the moment...
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
All of them will still prioritise those in the catchment area who pass their entrance exam first before opening places to those who pass the exam outside their catchment area until they are full
And again you miss the point.
The child with 89% no longer has a place in that Grammar school because the out of area children scored 90% and pushed the pass mark / entry mark to 90% rather than 89%.
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
In fairness that is also true of comprehensive school children as well. Look at Liz Truss.
Liz Truss would be our first ever PM solely educated at a comprehensive school for her secondary education, however she would then have to beat the grammar and private school educated Starmer. Historically, the odds would favour Starmer.
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
Whilst BJ may be an intellectual giant in his own head, I wouldn't call him a moron.
(BTW: in the Arnold Schwarzenegger interview about Churchill I listened to earlier, Arnie joked about Johnson's book on Churchill. I don't think he meant it in a complimentary manner...)
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
In fairness that is also true of comprehensive school children as well. Look at Liz Truss.
Liz Truss would be our first ever PM solely educated at a comprehensive school for her secondary education, however she would then have to beat the grammar and private school educated Starmer. Historically, the odds would favour Starmer
So would sanity...
Edit - incidentally does anyone know if Corbyn was a day boy or a boarder at Adam's Grammar?
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
It's inherently wrapped into the process. Model what happens with hospitalizations if nothing is done, get a range of outcomes with probabilities, use this to decide whether to do something. If this isn't the gist of what is happening, and nothing in that Fraser Nelson stuff indicates otherwise, I'd be surprised.
That's what should happen, but that's not what is happening. The favourable through to acceptable and bad but not catastrophic range of outcomes (like the model that Nelson referred to) were deliberately excluded from the report because of the misguided belief that they didn't "inform" anything, but they do.
If you snip out of the report 95% of the range* of outcomes rather than presenting it, then a distorted image is what is being presented.
* Number plucked from air.
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick. I doubt anybody is hiding things in order to get an ill informed decision. Eg, to simplify & illustrate, they model what'll happen if nothing is done and then -
If the worst realistic outcome of this is livable with - Definite No Action. If the central outcome is not livable with - Definite Action. If it's grey area, refine and ponder, refine and ponder, until either Action or No Action wins out.
Then if it's Action, the next step is to estimate the impact on the 'unlivable with' outcome. What will bring it into 'livable' territory?
Isn't getting 500 fans at most Scottish football matches an aspiration rather than a limit.......
Oh how we laughed
Glad you can laugh at the state of Scottish football.
What you blethering about , are you a resident of St Kilda.
The standard of Scottish football is utterly terrible. Even the big teams like Rangers and Celtic aren't competitive in Europe. Look at nobodies they get beat by in European competitions, nor are any really top class players interested in going there.
Long gone are the days when they were a formidable force against other European teams.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
In fairness that is also true of comprehensive school children as well. Look at Liz Truss.
Liz Truss would be our first ever PM solely educated at a comprehensive school for her secondary education, however she would then have to beat the grammar and private school educated Starmer. Historically, the odds would favour Starmer
So would sanity...
Edit - incidentally does anyone know if Corbyn was a day boy or a boarder at Adam's Grammar?
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
All of them will still prioritise those in the catchment area who pass their entrance exam first before opening places to those who pass the exam outside their catchment area until they are full
And again you miss the point.
The child with 89% no longer has a place in that Grammar school because the out of area children scored 90% and pushed the pass mark / entry mark to 90% rather than 89%.
So entrance still on academic merit then, not on house price to buy in the catchment area or church attendance like entrance to Outstanding Comprehensives or academies is based on (entrance to grammars based on catchment area for those of equal marks)
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
That second sentence is just bullshit. Yes intelligent children do sometimes fail under the exam conditions. But in areas with grammars the junior schools themselves run classes for the 11+. Both my kids passed with no additional tutoring beyond what they got at school - which was available to all irrespective of income. And the important point with the 11+ is that once you have learnt the basics of how the exams work then tutoring really makes no difference. And that is straight from the teachers at the schools who advise parents not to waste their money on it.
The only places that tend to do well from additional tutoring are those people coming from outside the Grammar school areas who want to send their kids over the border to a Grammar. There is a reason there are large numbers of tutors in non-Grammar Nottinghamshire compared to Grammar Lincolnshire.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Not entirely sure how grammar schools matter much to most people any more. The debate is Academy vs LEA, not Grammar vs Secondary Modern.
What LEA schools are left - the few LEA schools around here have fundamental building issues (mainly PFI contracts) that mean no one else will touch them including the DoE.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
Well you'd expect that to be the case. But the implication is that the bit about the 'probability of each case' is either missing or not based on the evidence we have. I don't know if that's actually the case.
I've read the Fraser Nelson twitter thread and I sense it's cross purposes between expert and layman. In essence I think the process goes like this - They model what happens with no action. If the worst realistic outcome is livable with it drives a decision of no action. Otherwise it's refine and focus on what best to do.
On Omi the problem is the uncertainty - ie big spread between best case and worst case - combined with the speed it's moving. Meaning if they don't act while still in the semi dark, by the time the lights come on it will be to illuminate a horror show.
But fwiw I still think no lockdown or if there is one it'll be 4 weeks max.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
It's inherently wrapped into the process. Model what happens with hospitalizations if nothing is done, get a range of outcomes with probabilities, use this to decide whether to do something. If this isn't the gist of what is happening, and nothing in that Fraser Nelson stuff indicates otherwise, I'd be surprised.
That's what should happen, but that's not what is happening. The favourable through to acceptable and bad but not catastrophic range of outcomes (like the model that Nelson referred to) were deliberately excluded from the report because of the misguided belief that they didn't "inform" anything, but they do.
If you snip out of the report 95% of the range* of outcomes rather than presenting it, then a distorted image is what is being presented.
* Number plucked from air.
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick. I doubt anybody is hiding things in order to get an ill informed decision. Eg, to simplify & illustrate, they model what'll happen if nothing is done and then -
If the worst realistic outcome of this is livable with - Definite No Action. If the central outcome is not livable with - Definite Action. If it's grey area, refine and ponder, refine and ponder, until either Action or No Action wins out.
Then if it's Action, the next step is to estimate the impact on the 'unlivable with' outcome. What will bring it into 'livable' territory?
This is essentially what the process is, I bet.
No if its a grey area (which it is) then present the full information to the politicians and let them decide.
It isn't the scientists job to decide that there must be action, or must not be, its their job to present the evidence and let the politicians make that call.
The problem was they hid half of the evidence, because they didn't think that evidence was informative. That's bad science and would lead to bad politics.
Do you really think half the science that points in the other direction should be hidden out of the report?
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
That second sentence is just bullshit. Yes intelligent children do sometimes fail under the exam conditions. But in areas with grammars the junior schools themselves run classes for the 11+. Both my kids passed with no additional tutoring beyond what they got at school - which was available to all irrespective of income. And the important point with the 11+ is that once you have learnt the basics of how the exams work then tutoring really makes no difference. And that is straight from the teachers at the schools who advise parents not to waste their money on it.
The only places that tend to do well from additional tutoring are those people coming from outside the Grammar school areas who want to send their kids over the border to a Grammar. There is a reason there are large numbers of tutors in non-Grammar Nottinghamshire compared to Grammar Lincolnshire.
That ain't true in Kent or Buckinghamshire based on the facts I know.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
All of them will still prioritise those in the catchment area who pass their entrance exam first before opening places to those who pass the exam outside their catchment area until they are full
And again you miss the point.
The child with 89% no longer has a place in that Grammar school because the out of area children scored 90% and pushed the pass mark / entry mark to 90% rather than 89%.
No, I don't think that's right. In Sale, for example, Sale Grammar School sets the pass mark. Anyone who passes the pass mark from within the catchment area (which is either Sale and Altrincham or the whole of Trafford, I forget which) is offered a place. Remaining places are then made up from applicants from out of cathcment.
In practice, I believe about one third of pupils are from out of catchment (though this belies the experience of my daughter who has just started there, who appears to have met hardly anyone not from Sale or Altrincham). Now this is a bit of a nuisance for Trafford as a whole, which is woefully squeezed on secondary school places. They could address this at a stroke simply by lowering the pass mark, which would mean more pupils from within Trafford get places, which would mean fewer from outside of Trafford (no matter how well they score). But that's a separate issue: the point is no matter how well someone from outside of the catchment area does, they can't displace a sufficiently good person within the catchment. Someone who passes the pass mark - which is known in advance - and is from within catchment - will get in.
Edit: of course, that's just here! Things may differ elsewhere.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
In fairness that is also true of comprehensive school children as well. Look at Liz Truss.
Liz Truss would be our first ever PM solely educated at a comprehensive school for her secondary education, however she would then have to beat the grammar and private school educated Starmer. Historically, the odds would favour Starmer
So would sanity...
Edit - incidentally does anyone know if Corbyn was a day boy or a boarder at Adam's Grammar?
What's your issue with Truss?
She is a comprehensive educated oik unlike Sir Keir?
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
In fairness that is also true of comprehensive school children as well. Look at Liz Truss.
Liz Truss would be our first ever PM solely educated at a comprehensive school for her secondary education, however she would then have to beat the grammar and private school educated Starmer. Historically, the odds would favour Starmer
So would sanity...
Edit - incidentally does anyone know if Corbyn was a day boy or a boarder at Adam's Grammar?
What's your issue with Truss?
Bluntly, she always comes across as a tad unbalanced. Able, but not shrewd. Determined, but also rather reckless. Passionate, but not always nuanced.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
I see the great Truss Australia deal is paying off...........
The post-Brexit trade deal signed with Australia last week will see British agriculture, forestry and fishing take a £94m hit, the Government’s own impact assessment shows. There is also an expected £225m hit to the semi-processed food sector, which includes tinned products, as part of a “reallocation of resources within the economy”. The impact assessment refers to Australia as a “large, competitive producer of agricultural products”, making clear the “potential for the deal to result in lower output for some agricultural sectors [in the UK] as a result”.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
Which is slightly odd though, given what we know about Omicron across multiple studies done in multiple countries it seems unnecessary to say it. It feels like some people have already predetermined that lockdown is necessary and are trying to fit their evidence to support it. Once again, I'm really grateful that the Cabinet refused that path and asked for actual evidence rather than modelled data.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
My booster jab text reminder said "get your life-saving booster jab..."
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
All of them will still prioritise those in the catchment area who pass their entrance exam first before opening places to those who pass the exam outside their catchment area until they are full
And again you miss the point.
The child with 89% no longer has a place in that Grammar school because the out of area children scored 90% and pushed the pass mark / entry mark to 90% rather than 89%.
No, I don't think that's right. In Sale, for example, Sale Grammar School sets the pass mark. Anyone who passes the pass mark from within the catchment area (which is either Sale and Altrincham or the whole of Trafford, I forget which) is offered a place. Remaining places are then made up from applicants from out of cathcment.
In practice, I believe about one third of pupils are from out of catchment (though this belies the experience of my daughter who has just started there, who appears to have met hardly anyone not from Sale or Altrincham). Now this is a bit of a nuisance for Trafford as a whole, which is woefully squeezed on secondary school places. They could address this at a stroke simply by lowering the pass mark, which would mean more pupils from within Trafford get places, which would mean fewer from outside of Trafford (no matter how well they score). But that's a separate issue: the point is no matter how well someone from outside of the catchment area does, they can't displace a sufficiently good person within the catchment. Someone who passes the pass mark - which is known in advance - and is from within catchment - will get in.
Edit: of course, that's just here! Things may differ elsewhere.
That is the way it is in Lincolnshire as well. Kids in the Catchment area get first choice so long as they passed. Indeed where I am there is a choice of 3 different Grammars. Only once those places have been filled does anyone from outside the catchment area get a chance.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
I'm not 100% she said exactly that.
Backtracking, eh? :wink
Ah, well maybe I owe Sturgeon an apology for accusing her of being cute with terminology. Instead, if she said 'severe', I can acuse her of lying
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school. I notice you did not send your kids to a sink school the bright but poor have little choice but to go to!
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
At least if the dreaded Covid hits me now, I can still say I've done the equivalent of one run a day this year...
Nice. I assume that means more than one run on some days. Any particular reason for that?
I prefer to do one long run and get it over with. But I did do a handful of multiple days.
On one day I did three runs. I did a ten-miler in the dark one Sunday this autumn, then got home for breakfast. Mrs J was feeling unwell, so I did the junior Parkrun with the little 'un. Whilst there, I met Mrs J's friend. They were meant to be running together, and she asked me to run instead. So I did another four miles after the Parkrun with her. Three runs in a morning: 10 miles, 1.2 miles, and 4 miles.
But I didn't count the park run in my official stats. It was too short...
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
That second sentence is just bullshit. Yes intelligent children do sometimes fail under the exam conditions. But in areas with grammars the junior schools themselves run classes for the 11+. Both my kids passed with no additional tutoring beyond what they got at school - which was available to all irrespective of income. And the important point with the 11+ is that once you have learnt the basics of how the exams work then tutoring really makes no difference. And that is straight from the teachers at the schools who advise parents not to waste their money on it.
The only places that tend to do well from additional tutoring are those people coming from outside the Grammar school areas who want to send their kids over the border to a Grammar. There is a reason there are large numbers of tutors in non-Grammar Nottinghamshire compared to Grammar Lincolnshire.
That ain't true in Kent or Buckinghamshire based on the facts I know.
Our local junior school (quite charming in its way but run by a rather lefty head who doesn't believe in selective education, despite working in a selective authority) refuses to teach for the 11+. She is far from atypical, although it is well known which junior schools do teach the 11+ (you can't choose to go there, of course - it's down to postcode alone). The private schools all teach the 11+, of course, because they do what parents want rather than what the teachers want. Consequently, tutoring is almost universal amongst the middle classes in Trafford. You don't tend to get it so much over the border in Manchester or Cheshire, though it does exist of course - simply because most people go to the local comp. It's not an issue for so many people.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
All of them will still prioritise those in the catchment area who pass their entrance exam first before opening places to those who pass the exam outside their catchment area until they are full
And again you miss the point.
The child with 89% no longer has a place in that Grammar school because the out of area children scored 90% and pushed the pass mark / entry mark to 90% rather than 89%.
No, I don't think that's right. In Sale, for example, Sale Grammar School sets the pass mark. Anyone who passes the pass mark from within the catchment area (which is either Sale and Altrincham or the whole of Trafford, I forget which) is offered a place. Remaining places are then made up from applicants from out of cathcment.
In practice, I believe about one third of pupils are from out of catchment (though this belies the experience of my daughter who has just started there, who appears to have met hardly anyone not from Sale or Altrincham). Now this is a bit of a nuisance for Trafford as a whole, which is woefully squeezed on secondary school places. They could address this at a stroke simply by lowering the pass mark, which would mean more pupils from within Trafford get places, which would mean fewer from outside of Trafford (no matter how well they score). But that's a separate issue: the point is no matter how well someone from outside of the catchment area does, they can't displace a sufficiently good person within the catchment. Someone who passes the pass mark - which is known in advance - and is from within catchment - will get in.
Edit: of course, that's just here! Things may differ elsewhere.
But you miss the point - Sale set the pass mark so it can select children from outside the catchment area rather setting the pass mark at the point where the school is filled by local children with few from outside the catchment area.
Set the score at 90% and you get 140 local children, 60 from outside the area Set the score at 88% and you get 200 local children and none from outside the area.
And these catchment areas are as you say the whole borough so there is zero justification for out of area children given that the catchment area will include both rich and poor areas.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
My booster jab text reminder said "get your life-saving booster jab..."
Damn, why wasn't I offered a 'life-saving' booster? I only got offered a 'COVID-19 booster'
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
I’m told a number of hedge funds are selling short risk assets for Dec 2022. A punt that we’re going to face variant panic again next winter. So there’s something to cheer you all up!
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
My booster jab text reminder said "get your life-saving booster jab..."
I am presuming that is a nudge team / behavioural insight idea.
I see Labour says it should have been announced last week. Makes you wonder why they didn’t demand it at the time
I still don’t get the politics from Labour’s side, of not refusing to pass last week’s bill without a support package for entertainment and hospitality businesses.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
Indeed and that is what is taught in junior schools in Grammar areas.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
I'm not 100% she said exactly that.
Backtracking, eh? :wink
Ah, well maybe I owe Sturgeon an apology for accusing her of being cute with terminology. Instead, if she said 'severe', I can acuse her of lying
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
My booster jab text reminder said "get your life-saving booster jab..."
Damn, why wasn't I offered a 'life-saving' booster? I only got offered a 'COVID-19 booster'
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
And just in case you were thinking about it, no smiling and no fun.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
All of them will still prioritise those in the catchment area who pass their entrance exam first before opening places to those who pass the exam outside their catchment area until they are full
And again you miss the point.
The child with 89% no longer has a place in that Grammar school because the out of area children scored 90% and pushed the pass mark / entry mark to 90% rather than 89%.
No, I don't think that's right. In Sale, for example, Sale Grammar School sets the pass mark. Anyone who passes the pass mark from within the catchment area (which is either Sale and Altrincham or the whole of Trafford, I forget which) is offered a place. Remaining places are then made up from applicants from out of cathcment.
In practice, I believe about one third of pupils are from out of catchment (though this belies the experience of my daughter who has just started there, who appears to have met hardly anyone not from Sale or Altrincham). Now this is a bit of a nuisance for Trafford as a whole, which is woefully squeezed on secondary school places. They could address this at a stroke simply by lowering the pass mark, which would mean more pupils from within Trafford get places, which would mean fewer from outside of Trafford (no matter how well they score). But that's a separate issue: the point is no matter how well someone from outside of the catchment area does, they can't displace a sufficiently good person within the catchment. Someone who passes the pass mark - which is known in advance - and is from within catchment - will get in.
Edit: of course, that's just here! Things may differ elsewhere.
But you miss the point - Sale set the pass mark so it can select children from outside the catchment area rather setting the pass mark at the point where the school is filled by local children with few from outside the catchment area.
Set the score at 90% and you get 140 local children, 60 from outside the area Set the score at 88% and you get 200 local children and none from outside the area.
And these catchment areas are as you say the whole borough so there is zero justification for out of area children given that the catchment area will include both rich and poor areas.
So you are saying they should set the pass mark to allow in kids who are less bright just to make sure they come from in the catchment area? Not sure you get this idea of 'the most intelligent'.
I see the great Truss Australia deal is paying off...........
The post-Brexit trade deal signed with Australia last week will see British agriculture, forestry and fishing take a £94m hit, the Government’s own impact assessment shows. There is also an expected £225m hit to the semi-processed food sector, which includes tinned products, as part of a “reallocation of resources within the economy”. The impact assessment refers to Australia as a “large, competitive producer of agricultural products”, making clear the “potential for the deal to result in lower output for some agricultural sectors [in the UK] as a result”.
Cheaper food, is a bad thing now?
At the expense of animal welfare yes was the general consensus I thought? I even recall it being used by Brexit blowhards as a benefit of the UK doing it's own thing.
Mind you, haven't had a 'nothing wrong with Campylobacter steeped chicken washed with bleach' for an age.
I see Labour says it should have been announced last week. Makes you wonder why they didn’t demand it at the time
I still don’t get the politics from Labour’s side, of not refusing to pass last week’s bill without a support package for entertainment and hospitality businesses.
Keir Starmer wanted to play the role of responsible grown up "not playing politics" without doing any of the hard work of politics like actually coming up with proposals or ideas of his own.
Its similar to when my little girls decide to play the role of being a teacher in their make believe play.
Actually coming up with proposals or ideas of your own is hard, no need to trouble young Keir's little mind with such worries. Better to play act at "not playing politics" instead.
Haha, ffs. Some FB groups I'm in have people organising house parties or booking church halls etc for replacement parties after they cancelled the street party.
I'm sure people are doing the same for all the football matches.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
My booster jab text reminder said "get your life-saving booster jab..."
I am presuming that is a nudge team / behavioural insight idea.
LOLs, not sure that is subtle enough to qualify as a 'nudge'
For those interested, here is a link to the decision-making model for decision-making method use in civil aviation, that I found online:
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
a) You can tutor for IQ tests very easily. Not sure where you got it that it was difficult. There are lots of techniques.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
a) You can't. IQ test results are in part based on genetics, they are difficult to tutor for unlike subject knowledge based exams.
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school.
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
a) you can - just allowing children to sit a few past papers so they understand how the questions work allows children to know how to answer the questions quicker allowing them more time to concentrate on more difficult questions.
You can understand the format of the questions but it is harder to prepare for the specific questions that will come up as they are logic and reasoning based, not subject knowledge based which are more tests of memory
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
It's inherently wrapped into the process. Model what happens with hospitalizations if nothing is done, get a range of outcomes with probabilities, use this to decide whether to do something. If this isn't the gist of what is happening, and nothing in that Fraser Nelson stuff indicates otherwise, I'd be surprised.
That's what should happen, but that's not what is happening. The favourable through to acceptable and bad but not catastrophic range of outcomes (like the model that Nelson referred to) were deliberately excluded from the report because of the misguided belief that they didn't "inform" anything, but they do.
If you snip out of the report 95% of the range* of outcomes rather than presenting it, then a distorted image is what is being presented.
* Number plucked from air.
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick. I doubt anybody is hiding things in order to get an ill informed decision. Eg, to simplify & illustrate, they model what'll happen if nothing is done and then -
If the worst realistic outcome of this is livable with - Definite No Action. If the central outcome is not livable with - Definite Action. If it's grey area, refine and ponder, refine and ponder, until either Action or No Action wins out.
Then if it's Action, the next step is to estimate the impact on the 'unlivable with' outcome. What will bring it into 'livable' territory?
This is essentially what the process is, I bet.
No if its a grey area (which it is) then present the full information to the politicians and let them decide.
It isn't the scientists job to decide that there must be action, or must not be, its their job to present the evidence and let the politicians make that call.
The problem was they hid half of the evidence, because they didn't think that evidence was informative. That's bad science and would lead to bad politics.
Do you really think half the science that points in the other direction should be hidden out of the report?
I said I was simplifying to illustrate but I see I overdid it. I didn't mean the modelers decide, I mean the pols decide with the modeling info as an input. It's collaborative. The Sage/Govt Covid process.
And you're still not seeing what I seek to place before you. They model the 'do nothing' outcomes and out of that come the best and central and worst realistic cases. What's being hidden?
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
In fairness that is also true of comprehensive school children as well. Look at Liz Truss.
Liz Truss would be our first ever PM solely educated at a comprehensive school for her secondary education, however she would then have to beat the grammar and private school educated Starmer. Historically, the odds would favour Starmer
So would sanity...
Edit - incidentally does anyone know if Corbyn was a day boy or a boarder at Adam's Grammar?
What's your issue with Truss?
Bluntly, she always comes across as a tad unbalanced. Able, but not shrewd. Determined, but also rather reckless. Passionate, but not always nuanced.
A tad unbalanced .... well, Liz was President of the Oxford University LibDems 🤣
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
That's a bog standard admissions policy - and incredibly easy to game.
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
All of them will still prioritise those in the catchment area who pass their entrance exam first before opening places to those who pass the exam outside their catchment area until they are full
And again you miss the point.
The child with 89% no longer has a place in that Grammar school because the out of area children scored 90% and pushed the pass mark / entry mark to 90% rather than 89%.
No, I don't think that's right. In Sale, for example, Sale Grammar School sets the pass mark. Anyone who passes the pass mark from within the catchment area (which is either Sale and Altrincham or the whole of Trafford, I forget which) is offered a place. Remaining places are then made up from applicants from out of cathcment.
In practice, I believe about one third of pupils are from out of catchment (though this belies the experience of my daughter who has just started there, who appears to have met hardly anyone not from Sale or Altrincham). Now this is a bit of a nuisance for Trafford as a whole, which is woefully squeezed on secondary school places. They could address this at a stroke simply by lowering the pass mark, which would mean more pupils from within Trafford get places, which would mean fewer from outside of Trafford (no matter how well they score). But that's a separate issue: the point is no matter how well someone from outside of the catchment area does, they can't displace a sufficiently good person within the catchment. Someone who passes the pass mark - which is known in advance - and is from within catchment - will get in.
Edit: of course, that's just here! Things may differ elsewhere.
But you miss the point - Sale set the pass mark so it can select children from outside the catchment area rather setting the pass mark at the point where the school is filled by local children with few from outside the catchment area.
Set the score at 90% and you get 140 local children, 60 from outside the area Set the score at 88% and you get 200 local children and none from outside the area.
And these catchment areas are as you say the whole borough so there is zero justification for out of area children given that the catchment area will include both rich and poor areas.
OK, we're probably in agreement. Note though that the pass mark is set in advance, I think - so they don't know how many local children they will get. Their risk is that they set it too low and have too many places to fill. Though they could, of course, set their requirements thus: 1) Children from within catchment who pass (say) 90%. 2) Children from within catchment who pass (say) 88%. ... and so on down to a nominal level, followed by children from outside the catchment. And only then children from outside catchment who get over 90% - which in practice they never get to, if the school is sufficiently popular (which you would expect it to be).
Haha, ffs. Some FB groups I'm in have people organising house parties or booking church halls etc for replacement parties after they cancelled the street party.
I'm sure people are doing the same for all the football matches.
No shit Sherlock.
Sturgeon is another one who loves play acting as being "responsible" but while passing the buck on for responsibilities to Westminster. Hence her cosplaying of being an independent nation within the EU with flying the EU Council of Europe flag etc
Anyone should have said immediately if you cancel activities on the street, you drive the activity indoors. People aren't going to be curling up with a good book and an early night instead.
Lucky we have no reason to think Covid spreads better indoors than outdoors, do we? 🤦♂️
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
So they need ex grammar school pupils like Sir Keir Starmer to remove them?
Keir Starmer is not proposing to remove private schools. The charitable status should clearly be removed, they are businesses like any other.
We need to make state schools better, not go around banning things
Won’t it just mean fewer students in the private sector, so the public sector has to teach more?
Yes, and the missing students will be those on bursaries and scholarships, the intelligent but less-well-off who don’t pay the fees, and will be denied their opportunity of social advancement.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
It's inherently wrapped into the process. Model what happens with hospitalizations if nothing is done, get a range of outcomes with probabilities, use this to decide whether to do something. If this isn't the gist of what is happening, and nothing in that Fraser Nelson stuff indicates otherwise, I'd be surprised.
That's what should happen, but that's not what is happening. The favourable through to acceptable and bad but not catastrophic range of outcomes (like the model that Nelson referred to) were deliberately excluded from the report because of the misguided belief that they didn't "inform" anything, but they do.
If you snip out of the report 95% of the range* of outcomes rather than presenting it, then a distorted image is what is being presented.
* Number plucked from air.
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick. I doubt anybody is hiding things in order to get an ill informed decision. Eg, to simplify & illustrate, they model what'll happen if nothing is done and then -
If the worst realistic outcome of this is livable with - Definite No Action. If the central outcome is not livable with - Definite Action. If it's grey area, refine and ponder, refine and ponder, until either Action or No Action wins out.
Then if it's Action, the next step is to estimate the impact on the 'unlivable with' outcome. What will bring it into 'livable' territory?
This is essentially what the process is, I bet.
No if its a grey area (which it is) then present the full information to the politicians and let them decide.
It isn't the scientists job to decide that there must be action, or must not be, its their job to present the evidence and let the politicians make that call.
The problem was they hid half of the evidence, because they didn't think that evidence was informative. That's bad science and would lead to bad politics.
Do you really think half the science that points in the other direction should be hidden out of the report?
I said I was simplifying to illustrate but I see I overdid it. I didn't mean the modelers decide, I mean the pols decide with the modeling info as an input. It's collaborative. The Sage/Govt Covid process.
And you're still not seeing what I seek to place before you. They model the 'do nothing' outcomes and out of that come the best and central and worst realistic cases. What's being hidden?
The best and central cases were hidden because they were "not informative". Only the worst case scenarios were presented.
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
No evidence Omicron is less severe?????????
Careful use of 'deadly' rather than 'severe'? Bit early for much evidence on deaths (although less severe implies fewer deaths, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that you could have fewer hospitalised but a similar death rate)
The infection mechanism seems to imply significantly lower severity as well.
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
Yep, I'm speculating it was a cute choice of words to say something that is arguably true (even though unlikely) given the emerging evidence on severity. (If it's a quote, then "no evidence omicron less severe" would be hard to defend by now)
My booster jab text reminder said "get your life-saving booster jab..."
I am presuming that is a nudge team / behavioural insight idea.
LOLs, not sure that is subtle enough to qualify as a 'nudge'
For those interested, here is a link to the decision-making model for decision-making method use in civil aviation, that I found online:
It is right up the alley of the sort of things the nudge team did / do, where isn't necessary about being subtle, it is around the right use of language. Using the term life saving versus not, I bet has a decent impact on no-shows.
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
In fairness that is also true of comprehensive school children as well. Look at Liz Truss.
Liz Truss would be our first ever PM solely educated at a comprehensive school for her secondary education, however she would then have to beat the grammar and private school educated Starmer. Historically, the odds would favour Starmer
So would sanity...
Edit - incidentally does anyone know if Corbyn was a day boy or a boarder at Adam's Grammar?
What's your issue with Truss?
Bluntly, she always comes across as a tad unbalanced. Able, but not shrewd. Determined, but also rather reckless. Passionate, but not always nuanced.
A tad unbalanced .... well, Liz was President of the Oxford University LibDems 🤣
Funny the people you didn’t meet sometimes. I was in the same year as Liz Truss and Christina Pagel at Oxford.
I see Labour says it should have been announced last week. Makes you wonder why they didn’t demand it at the time
I still don’t get the politics from Labour’s side, of not refusing to pass last week’s bill without a support package for entertainment and hospitality businesses.
Plenty of morons go to private school and have a lot more success than they deserve, see Boris Johnson
In fairness that is also true of comprehensive school children as well. Look at Liz Truss.
Liz Truss would be our first ever PM solely educated at a comprehensive school for her secondary education, however she would then have to beat the grammar and private school educated Starmer. Historically, the odds would favour Starmer
So would sanity...
Edit - incidentally does anyone know if Corbyn was a day boy or a boarder at Adam's Grammar?
What's your issue with Truss?
Bluntly, she always comes across as a tad unbalanced. Able, but not shrewd. Determined, but also rather reckless. Passionate, but not always nuanced.
A tad unbalanced .... well, Liz was President of the Oxford University LibDems 🤣
Funny the people you didn’t meet sometimes. I was in the same year as Liz Truss and Christina Pagel at Oxford.
I'm surprised his fame didn't endure a little better and that I've only just heard of him; he seems a remarkable character. Do older (his last National ride was before I was born) posters remember him? I found quite a nice write up about him in the New European (not sure why their link calls it Brexit news?!)
Comments
You are not the right person to be commenting on the nature of "One Nation". You aren't even "One Tory".
Also Aylesbury isn't the schools I know about - try those in Chesham, Amersham, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield all of whom are the closest Grammar schools to none Grammar school areas.
Although it's nice to see you doing some research even though you clearly don't know the Geography well enough to see the flaw within it.
You also miss the fact that where qualifying admissions are above the intake - this is the logic we use.
That stops the local child with 89% getting in (due to him being ill on the day of the single exam that is now used) while the distant child with 90% gets in as the out of area child take the pass mark up a single point.
We have got to watch this man Labourites
We should have a lot more data to test the 'overwhelm NHS' hypothesis at that point. For the pessimistic scenarios to hold true, we'd need London hospitalisations rising sharply, and London cases continuing to increase.
If not, let's start to get back to normal.
Yes there are successful people who come out of Stowe, David Niven, Richard Branson, Henry Cavill and my old housemaster is its head but it has never been an academic powerhouse
Its a neat act, so long as you don't peak behind the curtain and see how shallow it all is.
Saying you're not playing politics is part of how they're playing it. Never believe anything until its officially denied.
Just guidance, so my Hogmanay party will be going ahead.
"Get boosted by the bells, but don't have a party" - well what's the point of the vaccines then? I'm only trying to get a booster so I can get my life back to normal.
We need to make state schools better, not go around banning things
The child with 89% no longer has a place in that Grammar school because the out of area children scored 90% and pushed the pass mark / entry mark to 90% rather than 89%.
(BTW: in the Arnold Schwarzenegger interview about Churchill I listened to earlier, Arnie joked about Johnson's book on Churchill. I don't think he meant it in a complimentary manner...)
If anyone is interested, it's at the link below. It's available on other podcast servers as well:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4VgAUlQFG76oijCUWFH2ag
Edit - incidentally does anyone know if Corbyn was a day boy or a boarder at Adam's Grammar?
If the worst realistic outcome of this is livable with - Definite No Action.
If the central outcome is not livable with - Definite Action.
If it's grey area, refine and ponder, refine and ponder, until either Action or No Action wins out.
Then if it's Action, the next step is to estimate the impact on the 'unlivable with' outcome. What will bring it into 'livable' territory?
This is essentially what the process is, I bet.
Long gone are the days when they were a formidable force against other European teams.
b) In between our posts I have been chopping wood and did a rough mental calculation of how many should have got into the grammar school from my village all other things being equal (I know how many classes there were, the size of them, the fact that our village was a 3 member ward and how many councillors there were in the borough). The answer is about 25. There was 1 and he dropped out. If that doesn't give you an idea of the disparity between poor and middle class areas nothing will.
c) If you think the well off don't send their children to Comprehensives you live in a different world. I live in a well off area now. I am wealthy by most peoples measure as are most of the people I know. Nearly all use the local comprehensive, which I grant you is good, but that is not what you were saying.
d) Moving to a Grammar at sixth form is too late. The damage has been done. Many won't go who should. Many who were at the Grammar who shouldn't have been have dropped out.
Select by subject on an ongoing basis throughout the child's education.
The only places that tend to do well from additional tutoring are those people coming from outside the Grammar school areas who want to send their kids over the border to a Grammar. There is a reason there are large numbers of tutors in non-Grammar Nottinghamshire compared to Grammar Lincolnshire.
It's clever politics, of course, but someone should ask her what measures she and Drakeford would have brought in. Full lockdown? Furlough?
That's not to say it's conclusive, but surely another bit of evidence that Omicron may not be as bad as we fear.
What an air-head.
It isn't the scientists job to decide that there must be action, or must not be, its their job to present the evidence and let the politicians make that call.
The problem was they hid half of the evidence, because they didn't think that evidence was informative. That's bad science and would lead to bad politics.
Do you really think half the science that points in the other direction should be hidden out of the report?
In Sale, for example, Sale Grammar School sets the pass mark. Anyone who passes the pass mark from within the catchment area (which is either Sale and Altrincham or the whole of Trafford, I forget which) is offered a place. Remaining places are then made up from applicants from out of cathcment.
In practice, I believe about one third of pupils are from out of catchment (though this belies the experience of my daughter who has just started there, who appears to have met hardly anyone not from Sale or Altrincham). Now this is a bit of a nuisance for Trafford as a whole, which is woefully squeezed on secondary school places. They could address this at a stroke simply by lowering the pass mark, which would mean more pupils from within Trafford get places, which would mean fewer from outside of Trafford (no matter how well they score). But that's a separate issue: the point is no matter how well someone from outside of the catchment area does, they can't displace a sufficiently good person within the catchment. Someone who passes the pass mark - which is known in advance - and is from within catchment - will get in.
Edit: of course, that's just here! Things may differ elsewhere.
No kick around in the park?
So tomorrow is the "final" day of my predictions for week 50 as we'll have the Wednesday number which is what I was predicting.
Week 50 Admissions (prediction): 8400 +17% (up 300 from yesterday)
Week 50 Deaths (prediction): 414 +88% (up 20 from yesterday)
Ventilated: 2.7%
Oxygenated: 13.9%
I'll starting giving week 51 projections tomorrow
Ah, well maybe I owe Sturgeon an apology for accusing her of being cute with terminology. Instead, if she said 'severe', I can acuse her of lying
b) And all of them would likely have gone to a sink comprehensive otherwise, at least 1 still got to a grammar.
c) If the wealthy send their kids to a comp it will only be an Outstanding comp they have bought their kids admission to by buying a house in its catchment area, meaning there are well above average house prices for that catchment area. You buy a place at an Outstanding comp or academy much like you buy a place at private school effectively or else you go to church more regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school. I notice you did not send your kids to a sink school the bright but poor have little choice but to go to!
d) Sixth form entry for A levels and top university is fine for late developers
How many miles/KM are you running a week?
Consequently, tutoring is almost universal amongst the middle classes in Trafford.
You don't tend to get it so much over the border in Manchester or Cheshire, though it does exist of course - simply because most people go to the local comp. It's not an issue for so many people.
Set the score at 90% and you get 140 local children, 60 from outside the area
Set the score at 88% and you get 200 local children and none from outside the area.
And these catchment areas are as you say the whole borough so there is zero justification for out of area children given that the catchment area will include both rich and poor areas.
Mind you, haven't had a 'nothing wrong with Campylobacter steeped chicken washed with bleach' for an age.
Its similar to when my little girls decide to play the role of being a teacher in their make believe play.
Actually coming up with proposals or ideas of your own is hard, no need to trouble young Keir's little mind with such worries. Better to play act at "not playing politics" instead.
I'm sure people are doing the same for all the football matches.
For those interested, here is a link to the decision-making model for decision-making method use in civil aviation, that I found online:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Judith-Orasanu/publication/4687942/figure/fig2/AS:650470490124289@1532095658021/Decision-Process-Model-The-upper-rectangle-represents-the-Situation-Assessment_W640.jpg
And you're still not seeing what I seek to place before you. They model the 'do nothing' outcomes and out of that come the best and central and worst realistic cases. What's being hidden?
Though they could, of course, set their requirements thus:
1) Children from within catchment who pass (say) 90%.
2) Children from within catchment who pass (say) 88%.
...
and so on down to a nominal level, followed by children from outside the catchment.
And only then children from outside catchment who get over 90% - which in practice they never get to, if the school is sufficiently popular (which you would expect it to be).
Sturgeon is another one who loves play acting as being "responsible" but while passing the buck on for responsibilities to Westminster. Hence her cosplaying of being an independent nation within the EU with flying the EU Council of Europe flag etc
Anyone should have said immediately if you cancel activities on the street, you drive the activity indoors. People aren't going to be curling up with a good book and an early night instead.
Lucky we have no reason to think Covid spreads better indoors than outdoors, do we? 🤦♂️
Had all been shown, that would be valid.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1473309181381955596?s=20
It is easy that way as it avoids original thought
I'm surprised his fame didn't endure a little better and that I've only just heard of him; he seems a remarkable character. Do older (his last National ride was before I was born) posters remember him? I found quite a nice write up about him in the New European (not sure why their link calls it Brexit news?!)
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-grand-national-reckless-jockey-duke-aintree-7874238/