Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
Jesus. What the flying f***k is your IQ? I'm thinking minus. You actually think your comments add to the debate? No.. I'm not going to rise to this garbage... It is literally like letting the cretins take over the asylum.
BiB - love it, but I think you just did.
FWIW, HYUFD is rightly a respected poster on several matters. On education, however, he is utterly clueless. Sorry, HYUFD, but you don't know what you're talking about. Grammar schools will never return countrywide, nor should they.
Our people ie Tories very much want more grammar schools and they are the people the government desperately needs to win back and shore up. It does not have to be universal return to the 11+, just allowing local parents to ballot to open new grammars would be a start, now you can only ballot to close existing grammars
You Tories have been in power for the last 12 years. And before Blair, you were in power for 18 years. So you've had 30 years to do this, but haven't. Guess why? Because even Tory educationalists recognise that expanding grammar schools would be a retrograde step, as well as electorally unpopular.
Special measures for you, I'm afraid.
Yet even Theresa May got a higher voteshare in 2017 promising to expand grammars than Cameron did in 2010 after he had ruled out new grammars.
Some new grammars have been created in selective areas
Oh come on - she didn't do it, despite the promise! That's a new campus for an existing grammar school in Kent, which is atypical.
That's no different from calling a new wing at an existing hospital a new hospital. Oh, hang on......
Given the DUP also back grammar schools and she had a majority with the DUP she had a mandate to do so certainly.
It was Brexit failing to be delivered that did for May, not allowing some new grammar schools
Curiously in the last DUP manifesto Academic selection isn't mentioned once and the word grammar only appears once in the context of secondary and grammar schools. So I wouldn't say they support for Grammar schools is that great given the Sinn Fein had scrapping Academic selection as a key point in their manifesto.
Once again you quote historic data to argue your point while I reference the actual 2022 manifesto.
You really are demonstrating how untrustworthy you are....
The 2022 manifesto is completely irrelevant to 2017, when May had a majority with the DUP for more grammars and both the 2017 Tory and DUP manifestos backed academic selection.
NI is of course still fully selective anyway and the DUP even now have not said they will reverse that
We are talking about Grammar schools now - the only person talking about 2017 is you because none of the current data matches the argument you are trying to make so you are focussed on a different (and completely historic) argument to everyone else here.
Yep May tried to increase Grammar schools but she failed. Now Bozo is talking about doing the same thing again for similar reasons but the interest in them has fallen since even 2017..... To the point that the DUP didn't even have retain Academic selection in their manifesto in 2022 while Sinn Fein talked about dumping it once and for all.
No, I was talking about the fact May had a mandate with the DUP for her manifesto commitment for more grammar schools in 2017. Who knows what the Tory manifesto will be in 2024.
As I also pointed out even on your poll link more voters want more grammar schools than to close existing ones ie the latest poling.
There has also been no change in DUP policy to now back ending academic selection like Sinn Fein (all of NI is still selective unlike most of GB)
You were - the rest of us weren't....
No, the argument was there was no electoral support for new grammars. Theresa May in 2017 won a majority for new grammars with the DUP.
Even now on your very own polling link, a plurality of voters want new grammars
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
That is absolutely the way it should be, yes.
Instead of abolishing the grammar schools, the secondary moderns are what should have been progressively abolished. It was done arse over tit.
Give every child, every parent choice - and give the schools choice, and let competition drive its way forward, rather than having people assigned to schools based on postcodes or ability to pay for houses in good catchment areas, or simply getting what they're given without any choice.
At one point Stewart was seen as a right wing loon on here. Who knew he'd become leftie Corbynista lol!
All I'd say about the rail strikes is that that I think they are actually one a weakest sectors to be making demands, as technology will eventually make the vast majority of train drivers redundant...
All trains will be driverless within the next 30 years I suspect and by striking they will just bring their demise ever closer...
Point of order, GIN: the strikes don't involve any drivers. I don't think proponents of driverless trains actually favour having no staff at all.
Good evening Dr Palmer.
If that's true, then what's the problem? As long as there's people to drive them (until AI takes over ) then why not just keep the trains running?
At one point Stewart was seen as a right wing loon on here. Who knew he'd become leftie Corbynista lol!
All I'd say about the rail strikes is that that I think they are actually one a weakest sectors to be making demands, as technology will eventually make the vast majority of train drivers redundant...
All trains will be driverless within the next 30 years I suspect and by striking they will just bring their demise ever closer...
Point of order, GIN: the strikes don't involve any drivers. I don't think proponents of driverless trains actually favour having no staff at all.
Good evening Dr Palmer.
If that's true, then what's the problem? As long as there's people to drive them (until AI takes over) then why not just keep everything running?
You need signalmen in the signal boxes - and they are going on strike because they fear job cuts which would make their worker harder and the railways less safe...
At one point Stewart was seen as a right wing loon on here. Who knew he'd become leftie Corbynista lol!
All I'd say about the rail strikes is that that I think they are actually one a weakest sectors to be making demands, as technology will eventually make the vast majority of train drivers redundant...
All trains will be driverless within the next 30 years I suspect and by striking they will just bring their demise ever closer...
Point of order, GIN: the strikes don't involve any drivers. I don't think proponents of driverless trains actually favour having no staff at all.
Good evening Dr Palmer.
If that's true, then what's the problem? As long as there's people to drive them (until AI takes over ) then why not just keep the trains running?
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
Jesus. What the flying f***k is your IQ? I'm thinking minus. You actually think your comments add to the debate? No.. I'm not going to rise to this garbage... It is literally like letting the cretins take over the asylum.
BiB - love it, but I think you just did.
FWIW, HYUFD is rightly a respected poster on several matters. On education, however, he is utterly clueless. Sorry, HYUFD, but you don't know what you're talking about. Grammar schools will never return countrywide, nor should they.
Our people ie Tories very much want more grammar schools and they are the people the government desperately needs to win back and shore up. It does not have to be universal return to the 11+, just allowing local parents to ballot to open new grammars would be a start, now you can only ballot to close existing grammars
You Tories have been in power for the last 12 years. And before Blair, you were in power for 18 years. So you've had 30 years to do this, but haven't. Guess why? Because even Tory educationalists recognise that expanding grammar schools would be a retrograde step, as well as electorally unpopular.
Special measures for you, I'm afraid.
Yet even Theresa May got a higher voteshare in 2017 promising to expand grammars than Cameron did in 2010 after he had ruled out new grammars.
Some new grammars have been created in selective areas
Oh come on - she didn't do it, despite the promise! That's a new campus for an existing grammar school in Kent, which is atypical.
That's no different from calling a new wing at an existing hospital a new hospital. Oh, hang on......
Given the DUP also back grammar schools and she had a majority with the DUP she had a mandate to do so certainly.
It was Brexit failing to be delivered that did for May, not allowing some new grammar schools
Curiously in the last DUP manifesto Academic selection isn't mentioned once and the word grammar only appears once in the context of secondary and grammar schools. So I wouldn't say they support for Grammar schools is that great given the Sinn Fein had scrapping Academic selection as a key point in their manifesto.
Once again you quote historic data to argue your point while I reference the actual 2022 manifesto.
You really are demonstrating how untrustworthy you are....
The 2022 manifesto is completely irrelevant to 2017, when May had a majority with the DUP for more grammars and both the 2017 Tory and DUP manifestos backed academic selection.
NI is of course still fully selective anyway and the DUP even now have not said they will reverse that
We are talking about Grammar schools now - the only person talking about 2017 is you because none of the current data matches the argument you are trying to make so you are focussed on a different (and completely historic) argument to everyone else here.
Yep May tried to increase Grammar schools but she failed. Now Bozo is talking about doing the same thing again for similar reasons but the interest in them has fallen since even 2017..... To the point that the DUP didn't even have retain Academic selection in their manifesto in 2022 while Sinn Fein talked about dumping it once and for all.
No, I was talking about the fact May had a mandate with the DUP for her manifesto commitment for more grammar schools in 2017. Who knows what the Tory manifesto will be in 2024.
As I also pointed out even on your poll link more voters want more grammar schools than to close existing ones ie the latest poling.
There has also been no change in DUP policy to now back ending academic selection like Sinn Fein (all of NI is still selective unlike most of GB)
You were - the rest of us weren't....
No, the argument was there was no electoral support for new grammars. Theresa May in 2017 won a majority for new grammars with the DUP.
Even now on your very own polling link, a plurality of voters want new grammars
No she didn't. DUP have nothing to say about grammar schools what with education being a devolved matter
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
Jesus. What the flying f***k is your IQ? I'm thinking minus. You actually think your comments add to the debate? No.. I'm not going to rise to this garbage... It is literally like letting the cretins take over the asylum.
BiB - love it, but I think you just did.
FWIW, HYUFD is rightly a respected poster on several matters. On education, however, he is utterly clueless. Sorry, HYUFD, but you don't know what you're talking about. Grammar schools will never return countrywide, nor should they.
Our people ie Tories very much want more grammar schools and they are the people the government desperately needs to win back and shore up. It does not have to be universal return to the 11+, just allowing local parents to ballot to open new grammars would be a start, now you can only ballot to close existing grammars
You Tories have been in power for the last 12 years. And before Blair, you were in power for 18 years. So you've had 30 years to do this, but haven't. Guess why? Because even Tory educationalists recognise that expanding grammar schools would be a retrograde step, as well as electorally unpopular.
Special measures for you, I'm afraid.
Yet even Theresa May got a higher voteshare in 2017 promising to expand grammars than Cameron did in 2010 after he had ruled out new grammars.
Some new grammars have been created in selective areas
Oh come on - she didn't do it, despite the promise! That's a new campus for an existing grammar school in Kent, which is atypical.
That's no different from calling a new wing at an existing hospital a new hospital. Oh, hang on......
Given the DUP also back grammar schools and she had a majority with the DUP she had a mandate to do so certainly.
It was Brexit failing to be delivered that did for May, not allowing some new grammar schools
Curiously in the last DUP manifesto Academic selection isn't mentioned once and the word grammar only appears once in the context of secondary and grammar schools. So I wouldn't say they support for Grammar schools is that great given the Sinn Fein had scrapping Academic selection as a key point in their manifesto.
Once again you quote historic data to argue your point while I reference the actual 2022 manifesto.
You really are demonstrating how untrustworthy you are....
The 2022 manifesto is completely irrelevant to 2017, when May had a majority with the DUP for more grammars and both the 2017 Tory and DUP manifestos backed academic selection.
NI is of course still fully selective anyway and the DUP even now have not said they will reverse that
We are talking about Grammar schools now - the only person talking about 2017 is you because none of the current data matches the argument you are trying to make so you are focussed on a different (and completely historic) argument to everyone else here.
Yep May tried to increase Grammar schools but she failed. Now Bozo is talking about doing the same thing again for similar reasons but the interest in them has fallen since even 2017..... To the point that the DUP didn't even have retain Academic selection in their manifesto in 2022 while Sinn Fein talked about dumping it once and for all.
No, I was talking about the fact May had a mandate with the DUP for her manifesto commitment for more grammar schools in 2017. Who knows what the Tory manifesto will be in 2024.
As I also pointed out even on your poll link more voters want more grammar schools than to close existing ones ie the latest poling.
There has also been no change in DUP policy to now back ending academic selection like Sinn Fein (all of NI is still selective unlike most of GB)
You were - the rest of us weren't....
No, the argument was there was no electoral support for new grammars. Theresa May in 2017 won a majority for new grammars with the DUP.
Even now on your very own polling link, a plurality of voters want new grammars
Again you are talking about 2017 - the rest of us weren't
At one point Stewart was seen as a right wing loon on here. Who knew he'd become leftie Corbynista lol!
All I'd say about the rail strikes is that that I think they are actually one a weakest sectors to be making demands, as technology will eventually make the vast majority of train drivers redundant...
All trains will be driverless within the next 30 years I suspect and by striking they will just bring their demise ever closer...
Point of order, GIN: the strikes don't involve any drivers. I don't think proponents of driverless trains actually favour having no staff at all.
Good evening Dr Palmer.
If that's true, then what's the problem? As long as there's people to drive them (until AI takes over) then why not just keep everything running?
You need signalmen in the signal boxes - and they are going on strike because they fear job cuts which would make their worker harder and the railways less safe...
Shouldn't that be "signalperson" ?
Anyway, how long until AI can take over from these signal people?
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
Jesus. What the flying f***k is your IQ? I'm thinking minus. You actually think your comments add to the debate? No.. I'm not going to rise to this garbage... It is literally like letting the cretins take over the asylum.
BiB - love it, but I think you just did.
FWIW, HYUFD is rightly a respected poster on several matters. On education, however, he is utterly clueless. Sorry, HYUFD, but you don't know what you're talking about. Grammar schools will never return countrywide, nor should they.
Our people ie Tories very much want more grammar schools and they are the people the government desperately needs to win back and shore up. It does not have to be universal return to the 11+, just allowing local parents to ballot to open new grammars would be a start, now you can only ballot to close existing grammars
You Tories have been in power for the last 12 years. And before Blair, you were in power for 18 years. So you've had 30 years to do this, but haven't. Guess why? Because even Tory educationalists recognise that expanding grammar schools would be a retrograde step, as well as electorally unpopular.
Special measures for you, I'm afraid.
Yet even Theresa May got a higher voteshare in 2017 promising to expand grammars than Cameron did in 2010 after he had ruled out new grammars.
Some new grammars have been created in selective areas
Oh come on - she didn't do it, despite the promise! That's a new campus for an existing grammar school in Kent, which is atypical.
That's no different from calling a new wing at an existing hospital a new hospital. Oh, hang on......
Given the DUP also back grammar schools and she had a majority with the DUP she had a mandate to do so certainly.
It was Brexit failing to be delivered that did for May, not allowing some new grammar schools
Curiously in the last DUP manifesto Academic selection isn't mentioned once and the word grammar only appears once in the context of secondary and grammar schools. So I wouldn't say they support for Grammar schools is that great given the Sinn Fein had scrapping Academic selection as a key point in their manifesto.
Once again you quote historic data to argue your point while I reference the actual 2022 manifesto.
You really are demonstrating how untrustworthy you are....
The 2022 manifesto is completely irrelevant to 2017, when May had a majority with the DUP for more grammars and both the 2017 Tory and DUP manifestos backed academic selection.
NI is of course still fully selective anyway and the DUP even now have not said they will reverse that
We are talking about Grammar schools now - the only person talking about 2017 is you because none of the current data matches the argument you are trying to make so you are focussed on a different (and completely historic) argument to everyone else here.
Yep May tried to increase Grammar schools but she failed. Now Bozo is talking about doing the same thing again for similar reasons but the interest in them has fallen since even 2017..... To the point that the DUP didn't even have retain Academic selection in their manifesto in 2022 while Sinn Fein talked about dumping it once and for all.
No, I was talking about the fact May had a mandate with the DUP for her manifesto commitment for more grammar schools in 2017. Who knows what the Tory manifesto will be in 2024.
As I also pointed out even on your poll link more voters want more grammar schools than to close existing ones ie the latest poling.
There has also been no change in DUP policy to now back ending academic selection like Sinn Fein (all of NI is still selective unlike most of GB)
You were - the rest of us weren't....
No, the argument was there was no electoral support for new grammars. Theresa May in 2017 won a majority for new grammars with the DUP.
Even now on your very own polling link, a plurality of voters want new grammars
No she didn't. DUP have nothing to say about grammar schools what with education being a devolved matter
You are not having a good evening
If you're discounting devolved parties, then Theresa May had a majority on her own votes alone.
At one point Stewart was seen as a right wing loon on here. Who knew he'd become leftie Corbynista lol!
All I'd say about the rail strikes is that that I think they are actually one a weakest sectors to be making demands, as technology will eventually make the vast majority of train drivers redundant...
All trains will be driverless within the next 30 years I suspect and by striking they will just bring their demise ever closer...
Point of order, GIN: the strikes don't involve any drivers. I don't think proponents of driverless trains actually favour having no staff at all.
Good evening Dr Palmer.
If that's true, then what's the problem? As long as there's people to drive them (until AI takes over) then why not just keep everything running?
You need signalmen in the signal boxes - and they are going on strike because they fear job cuts which would make their worker harder and the railways less safe...
Shouldn't that be "signalperson" ?
Anyway, how long until AI can take over from these signal people?
Just as soon as driverless cars appear. Which I was assured was going to happen last decade.
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
Jesus. What the flying f***k is your IQ? I'm thinking minus. You actually think your comments add to the debate? No.. I'm not going to rise to this garbage... It is literally like letting the cretins take over the asylum.
BiB - love it, but I think you just did.
FWIW, HYUFD is rightly a respected poster on several matters. On education, however, he is utterly clueless. Sorry, HYUFD, but you don't know what you're talking about. Grammar schools will never return countrywide, nor should they.
Our people ie Tories very much want more grammar schools and they are the people the government desperately needs to win back and shore up. It does not have to be universal return to the 11+, just allowing local parents to ballot to open new grammars would be a start, now you can only ballot to close existing grammars
You Tories have been in power for the last 12 years. And before Blair, you were in power for 18 years. So you've had 30 years to do this, but haven't. Guess why? Because even Tory educationalists recognise that expanding grammar schools would be a retrograde step, as well as electorally unpopular.
Special measures for you, I'm afraid.
Yet even Theresa May got a higher voteshare in 2017 promising to expand grammars than Cameron did in 2010 after he had ruled out new grammars.
Some new grammars have been created in selective areas
Oh come on - she didn't do it, despite the promise! That's a new campus for an existing grammar school in Kent, which is atypical.
That's no different from calling a new wing at an existing hospital a new hospital. Oh, hang on......
Given the DUP also back grammar schools and she had a majority with the DUP she had a mandate to do so certainly.
It was Brexit failing to be delivered that did for May, not allowing some new grammar schools
Curiously in the last DUP manifesto Academic selection isn't mentioned once and the word grammar only appears once in the context of secondary and grammar schools. So I wouldn't say they support for Grammar schools is that great given the Sinn Fein had scrapping Academic selection as a key point in their manifesto.
Once again you quote historic data to argue your point while I reference the actual 2022 manifesto.
You really are demonstrating how untrustworthy you are....
The 2022 manifesto is completely irrelevant to 2017, when May had a majority with the DUP for more grammars and both the 2017 Tory and DUP manifestos backed academic selection.
NI is of course still fully selective anyway and the DUP even now have not said they will reverse that
We are talking about Grammar schools now - the only person talking about 2017 is you because none of the current data matches the argument you are trying to make so you are focussed on a different (and completely historic) argument to everyone else here.
Yep May tried to increase Grammar schools but she failed. Now Bozo is talking about doing the same thing again for similar reasons but the interest in them has fallen since even 2017..... To the point that the DUP didn't even have retain Academic selection in their manifesto in 2022 while Sinn Fein talked about dumping it once and for all.
No, I was talking about the fact May had a mandate with the DUP for her manifesto commitment for more grammar schools in 2017. Who knows what the Tory manifesto will be in 2024.
As I also pointed out even on your poll link more voters want more grammar schools than to close existing ones ie the latest poling.
There has also been no change in DUP policy to now back ending academic selection like Sinn Fein (all of NI is still selective unlike most of GB)
You were - the rest of us weren't....
No, the argument was there was no electoral support for new grammars. Theresa May in 2017 won a majority for new grammars with the DUP.
Even now on your very own polling link, a plurality of voters want new grammars
No she didn't. DUP have nothing to say about grammar schools what with education being a devolved matter
You are not having a good evening
As I have already posted the 2017 DUP manifesto included a commitment to support academic selection in NI and in GB of course in 2017 May's Tories won a majority on a manifesto of more selective schools
At one point Stewart was seen as a right wing loon on here. Who knew he'd become leftie Corbynista lol!
All I'd say about the rail strikes is that that I think they are actually one a weakest sectors to be making demands, as technology will eventually make the vast majority of train drivers redundant...
All trains will be driverless within the next 30 years I suspect and by striking they will just bring their demise ever closer...
Point of order, GIN: the strikes don't involve any drivers. I don't think proponents of driverless trains actually favour having no staff at all.
Good evening Dr Palmer.
If that's true, then what's the problem? As long as there's people to drive them (until AI takes over ) then why not just keep the trains running?
Repeat after me:
TRAIN DRIVERS ARE NOT ON STRIKE
Good evening Keep Calmer Vote Starmer... 2024 you'll be back in the Boris column. I have foreseen it!
Things that PB regularly says will happen which never do:
• capital punishment returning • house price crashes • nationwide grammar school system • the United States splitting • the Bakerloo line closing down
"the United States splitting"
We've always said that is scheduled for 2024-8 to be fair.
Whenever. It ain’t going to happen. Just another ludicrous PB fantasy.
I think the possibility of the US splitting is unlikely, but it's become a hell of a lot *more* likely over the past few years.
California and Texas seem to take turns threatening to leave every time a Presidential election doesn't go the way they want it. It is the equivalent of Yasmin Alibhai Brown or Bonnie Greer threatening to leave the UK every time Boris Johnson wins an election and should probably be treated with a similar level of sincerity (for the record, I'm glad both YAB and BG are still here).
There is a long list of countries more likely to split (or at least have parts break off) than the USA: the UK, Spain, Canada, Italy, Belgium, Libya, Indonesia, Russia - perhaps even China.
Things that PB regularly says will happen which never do:
• capital punishment returning • house price crashes • nationwide grammar school system • the United States splitting • the Bakerloo line closing down
"the United States splitting"
We've always said that is scheduled for 2024-8 to be fair.
Whenever. It ain’t going to happen. Just another ludicrous PB fantasy.
I think the possibility of the US splitting is unlikely, but it's become a hell of a lot *more* likely over the past few years.
California and Texas seem to take turns threatening to leave every time a Presidential election doesn't go the way they want it. It is the equivalent of Yasmin Alibhai Brown or Bonnie Greer threatening to leave the UK every time Boris Johnson wins an election and should probably be treated with a similar level of sincerity (for the record, I'm glad both YAB and BG are still here).
There is a long list of countries more likely to split (or at least have parts break off) than the USA: the UK, Spain, Canada, Italy, Belgium, Libya, Indonesia, Russia - perhaps even China.
Plus in the USA there's a history of separatism being considered virtually evil and completely unacceptable due to the Civil War, which simply isn't the case in many other nations.
Its one thing I always struggled with in the Star Wars prequels, the idea the Jedi were fighting against 'separatists' who were supposed to be the bad guys - to me anyone keeping oppressed anyone who wishes to separate is the bad guy, but in the USA the separatists (other than themselves when it came to the war of independence, but they don't think about it that way) were the Confederates.
"With the cult of Trump more dominant in the Republican party than ever, and radical rightwing groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys on the march, some regard the threat to democracy as greater now than it was a year ago. Among those raising the alarm is Barbara Walter, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and author of a new book, How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them.
Walter previously served on the political instability taskforce, an advisory panel to the CIA, which had a model to predict political violence in countries all over the world – except the US itself. Yet with the rise of Trump’s racist demagoguery, Walter, who has studied civil wars for 30 years, recognized telltale signs on her own doorstep.
One was the emergence of a government that is neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic – an “anocracy”. The other is a landscape devolving into identity politics where parties no longer organise around ideology or specific policies but along racial, ethnic or religious lines.
Walter told the Observer: “By the 2020 elections, 90% of the Republican party was now white. On the taskforce, if we were to see that in another multiethnic, multi-religious country which is based on a two-party system, this is what we would call a super faction, and a super faction is particularly dangerous.”
Not even the gloomiest pessimist is predicting a rerun of the 1861-65 civil war with a blue army and red army fighting pitched battles. “It would look more like Northern Ireland and what Britain experienced, where it’s more of an insurgency,” Walter continued. “It would probably be more decentralized than Northern Ireland because we have such a large country and there are so many militias all around the country.”"
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
But this is what we have now, more or less. All "kids" go the same schools, regardless of ability, because they all have to go somewhere. Currently we call them "comprehensives". They could equally meaningfully be called "grammar schools".
This is after all what the Conservatives did years ago, in the days of Thatcher, they called all the polytechnics "universities" but they all carried on pretty much as before, though with different job titles.
I went to a Scottish comprehensive back in the late 70s/early 80s that started streaming kids at the end of second year based on their performance in individual subjects through 3rd/4th year onwards to their O-grades and Highers. I think that it worked incredible well in that it pulled all children up rather than singling them out in such a divisive two tier secondary system at the end of primary school.
It also really helped those kids that excelled in some subjects but not in others, I think it was one of the secrets of the Scottish education systems success back then. I was lucky too, I went to a rural comprehensive with a great bunch of teachers who regarded the timetables as being very flexible so they could go the extra mile to help those that needed help in some subjects while also finding extra periods so the brightest were not held back when it came to taking on extra subjects, especially in areas like science.
I get so frustrated at the state of the current education system now here in Scotland which took something that was not broken and decided to replace it with a smaller but very inflexible curriculum that serves no child what ever their abilities. But then, the SNP Gov have managed to see Scottish places at our Universities continue to shrink while their 'free tuition' loan system totally restricts the ability of Scottish students from being able to study at any other UK wide Universities unless their parents have deep pockets. Curriculum for excellence and social mobility my behookie!
"With the cult of Trump more dominant in the Republican party than ever, and radical rightwing groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys on the march, some regard the threat to democracy as greater now than it was a year ago. Among those raising the alarm is Barbara Walter, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and author of a new book, How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them.
Walter previously served on the political instability taskforce, an advisory panel to the CIA, which had a model to predict political violence in countries all over the world – except the US itself. Yet with the rise of Trump’s racist demagoguery, Walter, who has studied civil wars for 30 years, recognized telltale signs on her own doorstep.
One was the emergence of a government that is neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic – an “anocracy”. The other is a landscape devolving into identity politics where parties no longer organise around ideology or specific policies but along racial, ethnic or religious lines.
Walter told the Observer: “By the 2020 elections, 90% of the Republican party was now white. On the taskforce, if we were to see that in another multiethnic, multi-religious country which is based on a two-party system, this is what we would call a super faction, and a super faction is particularly dangerous.”
Not even the gloomiest pessimist is predicting a rerun of the 1861-65 civil war with a blue army and red army fighting pitched battles. “It would look more like Northern Ireland and what Britain experienced, where it’s more of an insurgency,” Walter continued. “It would probably be more decentralized than Northern Ireland because we have such a large country and there are so many militias all around the country.”"
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
But this is what we have now, more or less. All "kids" go the same schools, regardless of ability, because they all have to go somewhere. Currently we call them "comprehensives". They could equally meaningfully be called "grammar schools".
This is after all what the Conservatives did years ago, in the days of Thatcher, they called all the polytechnics "universities" but they all carried on pretty much as before, though with different job titles.
Many, perhaps most, secondary modern (or comprehensive) schools in Kent now run a "grammar stream" in each year group.
Despite the marketing aspect of the mame it is a good idea actually. Less than half of Kent kids even take the 11+ (called the Kent Test) exam so the idea that grammar schools offer any kind of leg up for bright working class kids is risible.
"With the cult of Trump more dominant in the Republican party than ever, and radical rightwing groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys on the march, some regard the threat to democracy as greater now than it was a year ago. Among those raising the alarm is Barbara Walter, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and author of a new book, How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them.
Walter previously served on the political instability taskforce, an advisory panel to the CIA, which had a model to predict political violence in countries all over the world – except the US itself. Yet with the rise of Trump’s racist demagoguery, Walter, who has studied civil wars for 30 years, recognized telltale signs on her own doorstep.
One was the emergence of a government that is neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic – an “anocracy”. The other is a landscape devolving into identity politics where parties no longer organise around ideology or specific policies but along racial, ethnic or religious lines.
Walter told the Observer: “By the 2020 elections, 90% of the Republican party was now white. On the taskforce, if we were to see that in another multiethnic, multi-religious country which is based on a two-party system, this is what we would call a super faction, and a super faction is particularly dangerous.”
Not even the gloomiest pessimist is predicting a rerun of the 1861-65 civil war with a blue army and red army fighting pitched battles. “It would look more like Northern Ireland and what Britain experienced, where it’s more of an insurgency,” Walter continued. “It would probably be more decentralized than Northern Ireland because we have such a large country and there are so many militias all around the country.”"
There is a particularly nasty and grim irony in that American politicians from areas which helped to fund the IRA (the northeast/New England) are now most at risk of violent terrorist insurgencies themselves.
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
But this is what we have now, more or less. All "kids" go the same schools, regardless of ability, because they all have to go somewhere. Currently we call them "comprehensives". They could equally meaningfully be called "grammar schools".
This is after all what the Conservatives did years ago, in the days of Thatcher, they called all the polytechnics "universities" but they all carried on pretty much as before, though with different job titles.
Many, perhaps most, secondary modern (or comprehensive) schools in Kent now run a "grammar stream" in each year group.
Despite the marketing aspect of the mame it is a good idea actually. Less than half of Kent kids even take the 11+ (called the Kent Test) exam so the idea that grammar schools offer any kind of leg up for bright working class kids is risible.
Grammar schools improve results for poor but bright pupils by 10% compared to non selective schools
Bring back forgotten regiment names of the British Army could be one that we haven't seen for a while.
They have already started this process in the RAF. Any two individual crabs stood in close proximity get called squadron and are awarded a number. The 1*+ ranks love this as it creates many CO billets which can be dispensed as patronage.
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
But this is what we have now, more or less. All "kids" go the same schools, regardless of ability, because they all have to go somewhere. Currently we call them "comprehensives". They could equally meaningfully be called "grammar schools".
This is after all what the Conservatives did years ago, in the days of Thatcher, they called all the polytechnics "universities" but they all carried on pretty much as before, though with different job titles.
Many, perhaps most, secondary modern (or comprehensive) schools in Kent now run a "grammar stream" in each year group.
Despite the marketing aspect of the mame it is a good idea actually. Less than half of Kent kids even take the 11+ (called the Kent Test) exam so the idea that grammar schools offer any kind of leg up for bright working class kids is risible.
Grammar schools improve results for poor but bright pupils by 10% compared to non selective schools
Garbage. The vast majority of kids at Kent grammar schools had coaching from a private tutor, an academic parent or a private prep school to help them through the Kent Test. There are almost no "poor but bright" students in grammar schools. And overall Kent school exam results are no better than the rest of the UK.
As an aside, in US public schools (in LA at least), you effectively have a grammar stream, known as the Honors Program. Intake is every two years, and if your grades don't keep up, you are usually dropped. At larger instituions, this effectively acts as a school-within-a-school.
Personally, I think one should avoid getting too religious on the subject of grammars - either for or against. In areas of low population density, for example, adding grammars is going to be great for those who live near it... but a disaster for those at the edge of the catchment area. We also need to make sure that we don't make the mistakes of the post war period: i.e. we can't have a situation where the non-grammar schools are starved of cash and resources.
Furthermore, the goal has to be to improve everyone's educational outcomes. If we're adding 0.2 to GCSE scores for pupils who attend grammars, but knocking 0.4 off everyone else, then it's a problem - simply social mobility is not going to be improved if people who don't get into grammar schools (which will, after all, be 80% of kids) do worse than they did in comprehensives.
I think a proper trial of grammars in an area where educational (and socioeconomic) markers are close to average, and where they do not currently exist would probably be a good thing, so we can measure these effects. Because otherwise we're pontificating without data.
What is the goal here?
I would argue we want to see if grammars improve the educational outcomes for smart kids from poorer households, while not worsening it for the 80% who don't get in. Let's produce a balanced scorecard, and see if they achieve those goals.
And we should all agree to accept the data. I don't know whether they will help or not. But I do know that people being passionate about something is no substitute for evidence.
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
But this is what we have now, more or less. All "kids" go the same schools, regardless of ability, because they all have to go somewhere. Currently we call them "comprehensives". They could equally meaningfully be called "grammar schools".
This is after all what the Conservatives did years ago, in the days of Thatcher, they called all the polytechnics "universities" but they all carried on pretty much as before, though with different job titles.
Many, perhaps most, secondary modern (or comprehensive) schools in Kent now run a "grammar stream" in each year group.
Despite the marketing aspect of the mame it is a good idea actually. Less than half of Kent kids even take the 11+ (called the Kent Test) exam so the idea that grammar schools offer any kind of leg up for bright working class kids is risible.
Grammar schools improve results for poor but bright pupils by 10% compared to non selective schools
Garbage. The vast majority of kids at Kent grammar schools had coaching from a private tutor, an academic parent or a private prep school to help them through the Kent Test. There are almost no "poor but bright" students in grammar schools. And overall Kent school exam results are no better than the rest of the UK.
Well said. That is what was so great about my education via a Scottish comprehensive system in the eighties, we didn't need private tutors to get into a 'streamed school', but we did then get the flexibility of great public sector teachers that provided the same extra tuition for kids of all capabilities free via the timetable/curriculum when we needed it.
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
But this is what we have now, more or less. All "kids" go the same schools, regardless of ability, because they all have to go somewhere. Currently we call them "comprehensives". They could equally meaningfully be called "grammar schools".
This is after all what the Conservatives did years ago, in the days of Thatcher, they called all the polytechnics "universities" but they all carried on pretty much as before, though with different job titles.
Many, perhaps most, secondary modern (or comprehensive) schools in Kent now run a "grammar stream" in each year group.
Despite the marketing aspect of the mame it is a good idea actually. Less than half of Kent kids even take the 11+ (called the Kent Test) exam so the idea that grammar schools offer any kind of leg up for bright working class kids is risible.
Grammar schools improve results for poor but bright pupils by 10% compared to non selective schools
On the subject of education and schooling, I think the goal should simply be lifetime educational mobility. I got 4 GCSE's at age 16; then three years later with some help from college tutors turned things around and got 2 B's at A level; from where I got in to a Russell group uni, and then got a first. Since then I've been dealing with people with all sorts of educational backgrounds, including people who just dropped out and have little or no formal education, and often can't honestly tell the difference between them and those who went to top universities in terms of aptitude and ability. There are lots of people who just left school at 16 and can write as well as I can in a professional capacity, often without any formal training. I think the whole idea that people should 'do well' at school has some utility, but the tragedy is that people that don't often just lose confidence and doors close to them as a result.
There are also people that apparently do well, get high grades and go to top universities; but then can't get anywhere in life. Lots of educated derelicts, a particular phenomenon of the last 20 years. Educational attainment is just one quality that should have a high standing but ultimately isn't that important compared with confidence, resilience, pragmatism, intelligence, people skills etc.
On the subject of education and schooling, I think the goal should simply be lifetime educational mobility. I got 4 GCSE's at age 16; then three years later with some help from college tutors turned things around and got 2 B's at A level; from where I got in to a Russell group uni, and then got a first. Since then I've been dealing with people with all sorts of educational backgrounds, including people who just dropped out and have little or no formal education, and often can't honestly tell the difference between them and those who went to top universities in terms of aptitude and ability. There are lots of people who just left school at 16 and can write as well as I can in a professional capacity, often without any formal training. I think the whole idea that people should 'do well' at school has some utility, but the tragedy is that people that don't often just lose confidence and doors close to them as a result.
There are also people that apparently do well, get high grades and go to top universities; but then can't get anywhere in life. Lots of educated derelicts, a particular phenomenon of the last 20 years. Educational attainment is just one quality that should have a high standing but ultimately isn't that important compared with confidence, resilience, pragmatism, intelligence, people skills etc.
Just under 20% of the population are functionally illiterate. About the same percentage are functionally innumerate.
We will never get it down to 0%, but any education system where people leave incapable of reading or basic number skills is a failed one. There is endless talk on here about universities and grammar schools - the top end of the education ladder - but virtually nothing about this tragedy.
This is where the attention should go. But it's a blooming hard issue to solve, so it gets ignored.
Abolishing grammar schools because the problem is secondary moderns is like abolishing universities because the problem is polytechnics.
That problem was solved by turning all the polytechnics into universities.
Likewise, I thought that the point of creating academies and free schools was to "level up" or supplant all the mediocre and struggling comps, until all schools became super-duper. Like, well, the grammar schools are meant to be.
It always comes back to the same issue, of course. You cannot have a superior class of school from which most kids are excluded without dumping most kids in secondary moderns, whatever fancy name you give to the secondary moderns so as to pretend they are something else.
It is one thing to make eighteen year olds, who are, after all, adults compete for good university places, good apprenticeships and good jobs. It's quite another to toss 85% of children leaving primary school straight onto the scrapheap. And, as others have already pointed out, grammars aren't even a good tool for helping the "poor but bright" kids, most of whom will be squeezed out by the average offspring of sharp-elbowed upper middle class parents whom Mummy and Daddy can afford to have expensively tutored to get them through the eleven-plus.
Creating a new wave of grammar schools is yet another wheeze intended to appeal to the Tory core vote of elderly nostalgists, who will read about it in the Daily Express, next to the latest pieces about how high house prices are and how wonderful the Queen is, and dribble into their incontinence pads with excitement. They're a relic of a bygone era that most modern parents would quickly come to loathe, because most children would end up as rejects.
On the subject of education and schooling, I think the goal should simply be lifetime educational mobility. I got 4 GCSE's at age 16; then three years later with some help from college tutors turned things around and got 2 B's at A level; from where I got in to a Russell group uni, and then got a first. Since then I've been dealing with people with all sorts of educational backgrounds, including people who just dropped out and have little or no formal education, and often can't honestly tell the difference between them and those who went to top universities in terms of aptitude and ability. There are lots of people who just left school at 16 and can write as well as I can in a professional capacity, often without any formal training. I think the whole idea that people should 'do well' at school has some utility, but the tragedy is that people that don't often just lose confidence and doors close to them as a result.
There are also people that apparently do well, get high grades and go to top universities; but then can't get anywhere in life. Lots of educated derelicts, a particular phenomenon of the last 20 years. Educational attainment is just one quality that should have a high standing but ultimately isn't that important compared with confidence, resilience, pragmatism, intelligence, people skills etc.
Just under 20% of the population are functionally illiterate. About the same percentage are functionally innumerate.
We will never get it down to 0%, but any education system where people leave incapable of reading or basic number skills is a failed one. There is endless talk on here about universities and grammar schools - the top end of the education ladder - but virtually nothing about this tragedy.
This is where the attention should go. But it's a blooming hard issue to solve, so it gets ignored.
Perhaps what is needed is the reverse of a grammar school system - take the bottom 20% of pupils out of the regular system, rather than the top 20%.
This has the effect both of reducing the disruption at the regular schools, and concentrating the efforts on those who may benefit from a more vocational education.
Oh, and more heads like Katharine Birbalsingh, can we clone a few thousand of her?
On the subject of education and schooling, I think the goal should simply be lifetime educational mobility. I got 4 GCSE's at age 16; then three years later with some help from college tutors turned things around and got 2 B's at A level; from where I got in to a Russell group uni, and then got a first. Since then I've been dealing with people with all sorts of educational backgrounds, including people who just dropped out and have little or no formal education, and often can't honestly tell the difference between them and those who went to top universities in terms of aptitude and ability. There are lots of people who just left school at 16 and can write as well as I can in a professional capacity, often without any formal training. I think the whole idea that people should 'do well' at school has some utility, but the tragedy is that people that don't often just lose confidence and doors close to them as a result.
There are also people that apparently do well, get high grades and go to top universities; but then can't get anywhere in life. Lots of educated derelicts, a particular phenomenon of the last 20 years. Educational attainment is just one quality that should have a high standing but ultimately isn't that important compared with confidence, resilience, pragmatism, intelligence, people skills etc.
Just under 20% of the population are functionally illiterate. About the same percentage are functionally innumerate.
We will never get it down to 0%, but any education system where people leave incapable of reading or basic number skills is a failed one. There is endless talk on here about universities and grammar schools - the top end of the education ladder - but virtually nothing about this tragedy.
This is where the attention should go. But it's a blooming hard issue to solve, so it gets ignored.
Perhaps what is needed is the reverse of a grammar school system - take the bottom 20% of pupils out of the regular system, rather than the top 20%.
This has the effect both of reducing the disruption at the regular schools, and concentrating the efforts on those who may benefit from a more vocational education.
Oh, and more heads like Katharine Birbalsingh, can we clone a few thousand of her?
Has anyone set up a free school with an entrance exam which requires the child to fail it, and bars the bright kids?
If grammar schools are a bad idea, why does Germany have them?
The problem is not so much grammar schools, as secondary moderns.
So why abolish the grammar schools, why not abolish the secondary moderns?
This post must win some kind of award.
There's no reason for having 80-85% of kids going to secondary moderns, just because that is how it was done in the past doesn't mean it needs to be done. We don't have young adults studying in polytechnics anymore do we?
Yes polytechnics were turned into University, so why not turn Comprehensives into Grammar schools? Instead of having Grammar schools for 20% of the population have them for all of the population.
Allow every child and parent to be able to choose which school they want to go to, instead of having postcodes decide it.
Allow every school be able to be a Grammar and able to select based upon competition of ability to learn, instead of ability to earn enough to buy a house in the catchment area.
Then allow competition to drive standards forward. Previously Comprehensive schools that are now Grammar schools instead can compete to get the best teachers, best students, set the best standards, instead of Grammar schools having it all their way based upon history alone.
Competition works to drive standards forward, but that competition doesn't need to be for 20% alone, it can be for everyone.
EXC: Lord Geidt believes allegations that Boris Johnson tried to appoint his future wife to a plum government job "could be ripe for investigation", Telegraph can reveal.
PM’s former ethics adviser thinks the incident could be a matter for his successor.
Must say that I enjoyed the blatant lie about Big Dog's "sinus operation" yesterday. An op under general anaesthetic that morning home by 10am and immediately chairing meetings!
Kudos for the sinus line though. Loads of people spotted that he was off his tits on cocaine, so lets blame the sniffing on a bad sinus. Cobblers.
On the subject of education and schooling, I think the goal should simply be lifetime educational mobility. I got 4 GCSE's at age 16; then three years later with some help from college tutors turned things around and got 2 B's at A level; from where I got in to a Russell group uni, and then got a first. Since then I've been dealing with people with all sorts of educational backgrounds, including people who just dropped out and have little or no formal education, and often can't honestly tell the difference between them and those who went to top universities in terms of aptitude and ability. There are lots of people who just left school at 16 and can write as well as I can in a professional capacity, often without any formal training. I think the whole idea that people should 'do well' at school has some utility, but the tragedy is that people that don't often just lose confidence and doors close to them as a result.
There are also people that apparently do well, get high grades and go to top universities; but then can't get anywhere in life. Lots of educated derelicts, a particular phenomenon of the last 20 years. Educational attainment is just one quality that should have a high standing but ultimately isn't that important compared with confidence, resilience, pragmatism, intelligence, people skills etc.
Just under 20% of the population are functionally illiterate. About the same percentage are functionally innumerate.
We will never get it down to 0%, but any education system where people leave incapable of reading or basic number skills is a failed one. There is endless talk on here about universities and grammar schools - the top end of the education ladder - but virtually nothing about this tragedy.
This is where the attention should go. But it's a blooming hard issue to solve, so it gets ignored.
Perhaps what is needed is the reverse of a grammar school system - take the bottom 20% of pupils out of the regular system, rather than the top 20%.
This has the effect both of reducing the disruption at the regular schools, and concentrating the efforts on those who may benefit from a more vocational education.
Oh, and more heads like Katharine Birbalsingh, can we clone a few thousand of her?
That's an interesting idea.
But the problem is that many of the pupils who have trouble with basic literacy and numeracy come from homes that are not particularly educationally supportive. I guess most of us on here who have, or had, kids spent many hours tutoring them - even if that 'tutoring' was reading to them.
Many kids don't get that. I see it with a couple of kids in my son's class.
For such kids, school is a vital backstop, and we need to invest more heavily at the bottom end than in the brightest kids - who, with the Internet and other resources, can often teach themselves once they get the basics.
(I am not in education, so I expect professionals may scoff at the above...)
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
But this is what we have now, more or less. All "kids" go the same schools, regardless of ability, because they all have to go somewhere. Currently we call them "comprehensives". They could equally meaningfully be called "grammar schools".
This is after all what the Conservatives did years ago, in the days of Thatcher, they called all the polytechnics "universities" but they all carried on pretty much as before, though with different job titles.
Many, perhaps most, secondary modern (or comprehensive) schools in Kent now run a "grammar stream" in each year group.
Despite the marketing aspect of the mame it is a good idea actually. Less than half of Kent kids even take the 11+ (called the Kent Test) exam so the idea that grammar schools offer any kind of leg up for bright working class kids is risible.
Grammar schools improve results for poor but bright pupils by 10% compared to non selective schools
Garbage. The vast majority of kids at Kent grammar schools had coaching from a private tutor, an academic parent or a private prep school to help them through the Kent Test. There are almost no "poor but bright" students in grammar schools. And overall Kent school exam results are no better than the rest of the UK.
Read the report, those on free school meals above average academically get better results at grammars than at non selective schools.
Plus the idea those who sent their children to prep school would ever send their children to comprehensives if there were no grammars is also garbage, they would send them to private schools
Is there any polling on Secondary Moderns on the same lines? After all, that is where most children would go...
Ah, but Tories all assume they'll leave someone else with the shitty end of the educational stick.
PS And re Matrons, I expect they will see no harm in repeating it - like double counting "new hospitals" and defining minor extensions as "hospitals". The old jokes are the best.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 13h The reason grammar schools were gradually phased out from the early 60s onwards is that voters hated them. If you want to explain to 85% of your constituents why their kids are going to rubbish schools, go ahead, be my guest. You'll get nowhere.
Except as I already pointed out 38% want more grammars created, only 23% want to scrap existing grammars and 17% want to keep current grammars but create no more. Even 33% of former secondary modern pupils want more grammars.
The more grammar schools there are, the more parents will want more grammar schools.
Eventually, every school will be a grammar school, because who wants their kid to go to a non-grammar school?
But this is what we have now, more or less. All "kids" go the same schools, regardless of ability, because they all have to go somewhere. Currently we call them "comprehensives". They could equally meaningfully be called "grammar schools".
This is after all what the Conservatives did years ago, in the days of Thatcher, they called all the polytechnics "universities" but they all carried on pretty much as before, though with different job titles.
Many, perhaps most, secondary modern (or comprehensive) schools in Kent now run a "grammar stream" in each year group.
Despite the marketing aspect of the mame it is a good idea actually. Less than half of Kent kids even take the 11+ (called the Kent Test) exam so the idea that grammar schools offer any kind of leg up for bright working class kids is risible.
Grammar schools improve results for poor but bright pupils by 10% compared to non selective schools
Garbage. The vast majority of kids at Kent grammar schools had coaching from a private tutor, an academic parent or a private prep school to help them through the Kent Test. There are almost no "poor but bright" students in grammar schools. And overall Kent school exam results are no better than the rest of the UK.
Read the report, those on free school meals above average academically get better results at grammars than at non selective schools.
Plus the idea those who sent their children to prep school would ever send their children to comprehensives if there were no grammars is also garbage, they would send them to private schools
"those on free school meals above average academically get better results at grammars than at non selective schools."
On the subject of education and schooling, I think the goal should simply be lifetime educational mobility. I got 4 GCSE's at age 16; then three years later with some help from college tutors turned things around and got 2 B's at A level; from where I got in to a Russell group uni, and then got a first. Since then I've been dealing with people with all sorts of educational backgrounds, including people who just dropped out and have little or no formal education, and often can't honestly tell the difference between them and those who went to top universities in terms of aptitude and ability. There are lots of people who just left school at 16 and can write as well as I can in a professional capacity, often without any formal training. I think the whole idea that people should 'do well' at school has some utility, but the tragedy is that people that don't often just lose confidence and doors close to them as a result.
There are also people that apparently do well, get high grades and go to top universities; but then can't get anywhere in life. Lots of educated derelicts, a particular phenomenon of the last 20 years. Educational attainment is just one quality that should have a high standing but ultimately isn't that important compared with confidence, resilience, pragmatism, intelligence, people skills etc.
Just under 20% of the population are functionally illiterate. About the same percentage are functionally innumerate.
We will never get it down to 0%, but any education system where people leave incapable of reading or basic number skills is a failed one. There is endless talk on here about universities and grammar schools - the top end of the education ladder - but virtually nothing about this tragedy.
This is where the attention should go. But it's a blooming hard issue to solve, so it gets ignored.
Perhaps what is needed is the reverse of a grammar school system - take the bottom 20% of pupils out of the regular system, rather than the top 20%.
This has the effect both of reducing the disruption at the regular schools, and concentrating the efforts on those who may benefit from a more vocational education.
Oh, and more heads like Katharine Birbalsingh, can we clone a few thousand of her?
That's an interesting idea.
But the problem is that many of the pupils who have trouble with basic literacy and numeracy come from homes that are not particularly educationally supportive. I guess most of us on here who have, or had, kids spent many hours tutoring them - even if that 'tutoring' was reading to them.
Many kids don't get that. I see it with a couple of kids in my son's class.
For such kids, school is a vital backstop, and we need to invest more heavily at the bottom end than in the brightest kids - who, with the Internet and other resources, can often teach themselves once they get the basics.
(I am not in education, so I expect professionals may scoff at the above...)
Rubbish, at both ends. The brightest need much more education because they Hoover up much more knowledge. Teaching really gifted children is a hundred times harder than teaching those with low attainment.
And there are certainly large numbers of children in mainstream schools who for various medical reasons cannot possibly cope and shouldn't be there, and who make life hell for others and damage their education.
But OFSTED are closing all schools for such students, partly because OFSTED are stupid and led by a failed investment manager who is a clear cut safeguarding risk, and partly because the DfE have been saving money by shutting these expensive places to pay for their boozy parties other expenses.
Comments
Even now on your very own polling link, a plurality of voters want new grammars
Instead of abolishing the grammar schools, the secondary moderns are what should have been progressively abolished. It was done arse over tit.
Give every child, every parent choice - and give the schools choice, and let competition drive its way forward, rather than having people assigned to schools based on postcodes or ability to pay for houses in good catchment areas, or simply getting what they're given without any choice.
If that's true, then what's the problem? As long as there's people to drive them (until AI takes over
TRAIN
DRIVERS
ARE
NOT
ON
STRIKE
Or you could call them academies nowadays. But yes, grammar schools for all, instead of secondary moderns or comprehensives for all.
You are not having a good evening
Anyway, how long until AI can take over from these signal people?
https://www.rawstory.com/no-texas-cant-legally-secede-from-the-u-s-despite-popular-myth/
It is the equivalent of Yasmin Alibhai Brown or Bonnie Greer threatening to leave the UK every time Boris Johnson wins an election and should probably be treated with a similar level of sincerity (for the record, I'm glad both YAB and BG are still here).
There is a long list of countries more likely to split (or at least have parts break off) than the USA: the UK, Spain, Canada, Italy, Belgium, Libya, Indonesia, Russia - perhaps even China.
Its one thing I always struggled with in the Star Wars prequels, the idea the Jedi were fighting against 'separatists' who were supposed to be the bad guys - to me anyone keeping oppressed anyone who wishes to separate is the bad guy, but in the USA the separatists (other than themselves when it came to the war of independence, but they don't think about it that way) were the Confederates.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war
"With the cult of Trump more dominant in the Republican party than ever, and radical rightwing groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys on the march, some regard the threat to democracy as greater now than it was a year ago. Among those raising the alarm is Barbara Walter, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and author of a new book, How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them.
Walter previously served on the political instability taskforce, an advisory panel to the CIA, which had a model to predict political violence in countries all over the world – except the US itself. Yet with the rise of Trump’s racist demagoguery, Walter, who has studied civil wars for 30 years, recognized telltale signs on her own doorstep.
One was the emergence of a government that is neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic – an “anocracy”. The other is a landscape devolving into identity politics where parties no longer organise around ideology or specific policies but along racial, ethnic or religious lines.
Walter told the Observer: “By the 2020 elections, 90% of the Republican party was now white. On the taskforce, if we were to see that in another multiethnic, multi-religious country which is based on a two-party system, this is what we would call a super faction, and a super faction is particularly dangerous.”
Not even the gloomiest pessimist is predicting a rerun of the 1861-65 civil war with a blue army and red army fighting pitched battles. “It would look more like Northern Ireland and what Britain experienced, where it’s more of an insurgency,” Walter continued. “It would probably be more decentralized than Northern Ireland because we have such a large country and there are so many militias all around the country.”"
It also really helped those kids that excelled in some subjects but not in others, I think it was one of the secrets of the Scottish education systems success back then. I was lucky too, I went to a rural comprehensive with a great bunch of teachers who regarded the timetables as being very flexible so they could go the extra mile to help those that needed help in some subjects while also finding extra periods so the brightest were not held back when it came to taking on extra subjects, especially in areas like science.
I get so frustrated at the state of the current education system now here in Scotland which took something that was not broken and decided to replace it with a smaller but very inflexible curriculum that serves no child what ever their abilities. But then, the SNP Gov have managed to see Scottish places at our Universities continue to shrink while their 'free tuition' loan system totally restricts the ability of Scottish students from being able to study at any other UK wide Universities unless their parents have deep pockets. Curriculum for excellence and social mobility my behookie!
Despite the marketing aspect of the mame it is a good idea actually. Less than half of Kent kids even take the 11+ (called the Kent Test) exam so the idea that grammar schools offer any kind of leg up for bright working class kids is risible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3888312/Grammars-transform-white-working-class-areas-Report-says-schools-enable-children-achieve-middle-class-backgrounds.html
They have already started this process in the RAF. Any two individual crabs stood in close proximity get called squadron and are awarded a number. The 1*+ ranks love this as it creates many CO billets which can be dispensed as patronage.
Personally, I think one should avoid getting too religious on the subject of grammars - either for or against. In areas of low population density, for example, adding grammars is going to be great for those who live near it... but a disaster for those at the edge of the catchment area. We also need to make sure that we don't make the mistakes of the post war period: i.e. we can't have a situation where the non-grammar schools are starved of cash and resources.
Furthermore, the goal has to be to improve everyone's educational outcomes. If we're adding 0.2 to GCSE scores for pupils who attend grammars, but knocking 0.4 off everyone else, then it's a problem - simply social mobility is not going to be improved if people who don't get into grammar schools (which will, after all, be 80% of kids) do worse than they did in comprehensives.
I think a proper trial of grammars in an area where educational (and socioeconomic) markers are close to average, and where they do not currently exist would probably be a good thing, so we can measure these effects. Because otherwise we're pontificating without data.
What is the goal here?
I would argue we want to see if grammars improve the educational outcomes for smart kids from poorer households, while not worsening it for the 80% who don't get in. Let's produce a balanced scorecard, and see if they achieve those goals.
And we should all agree to accept the data. I don't know whether they will help or not. But I do know that people being passionate about something is no substitute for evidence.
https://www.respublica.org.uk/our-work/publications/achieving-educational-excellence-knowsley-review-attainment/
Because the non-Daily Mail research is a lot more nuanced.
There are also people that apparently do well, get high grades and go to top universities; but then can't get anywhere in life. Lots of educated derelicts, a particular phenomenon of the last 20 years. Educational attainment is just one quality that should have a high standing but ultimately isn't that important compared with confidence, resilience, pragmatism, intelligence, people skills etc.
We will never get it down to 0%, but any education system where people leave incapable of reading or basic number skills is a failed one. There is endless talk on here about universities and grammar schools - the top end of the education ladder - but virtually nothing about this tragedy.
This is where the attention should go. But it's a blooming hard issue to solve, so it gets ignored.
Likewise, I thought that the point of creating academies and free schools was to "level up" or supplant all the mediocre and struggling comps, until all schools became super-duper. Like, well, the grammar schools are meant to be.
It always comes back to the same issue, of course. You cannot have a superior class of school from which most kids are excluded without dumping most kids in secondary moderns, whatever fancy name you give to the secondary moderns so as to pretend they are something else.
It is one thing to make eighteen year olds, who are, after all, adults compete for good university places, good apprenticeships and good jobs. It's quite another to toss 85% of children leaving primary school straight onto the scrapheap. And, as others have already pointed out, grammars aren't even a good tool for helping the "poor but bright" kids, most of whom will be squeezed out by the average offspring of sharp-elbowed upper middle class parents whom Mummy and Daddy can afford to have expensively tutored to get them through the eleven-plus.
Creating a new wave of grammar schools is yet another wheeze intended to appeal to the Tory core vote of elderly nostalgists, who will read about it in the Daily Express, next to the latest pieces about how high house prices are and how wonderful the Queen is, and dribble into their incontinence pads with excitement. They're a relic of a bygone era that most modern parents would quickly come to loathe, because most children would end up as rejects.
This has the effect both of reducing the disruption at the regular schools, and concentrating the efforts on those who may benefit from a more vocational education.
Oh, and more heads like Katharine Birbalsingh, can we clone a few thousand of her?
If she regretted it, why didn't she overturn her decision when she was PM, for most of Premiership she had a majority of over 100.
Ukraine’s harvest may decline to 60m tons of grain and oilseeds this year/43% decrease according to Deputy Agriculture Minister Dmytrasevych
So far Ukraine has exported 4m tons in the last 4 months vs usual MONTHLY exports of 5-6m tons
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1538667684224811010?t=Ukq3FvrwX6HLqRlKelYs_A&s=09
Yes polytechnics were turned into University, so why not turn Comprehensives into Grammar schools? Instead of having Grammar schools for 20% of the population have them for all of the population.
Allow every child and parent to be able to choose which school they want to go to, instead of having postcodes decide it.
Allow every school be able to be a Grammar and able to select based upon competition of ability to learn, instead of ability to earn enough to buy a house in the catchment area.
Then allow competition to drive standards forward. Previously Comprehensive schools that are now Grammar schools instead can compete to get the best teachers, best students, set the best standards, instead of Grammar schools having it all their way based upon history alone.
Competition works to drive standards forward, but that competition doesn't need to be for 20% alone, it can be for everyone.
PM’s former ethics adviser thinks the incident could be a matter for his successor.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/20/claims-boris-johnson-tried-hire-carrie-chief-staff-ripe-investigation/
Kudos for the sinus line though. Loads of people spotted that he was off his tits on cocaine, so lets blame the sniffing on a bad sinus. Cobblers.
I'm anti grammar school and want to reduce the number of people going to university.
But the problem is that many of the pupils who have trouble with basic literacy and numeracy come from homes that are not particularly educationally supportive. I guess most of us on here who have, or had, kids spent many hours tutoring them - even if that 'tutoring' was reading to them.
Many kids don't get that. I see it with a couple of kids in my son's class.
For such kids, school is a vital backstop, and we need to invest more heavily at the bottom end than in the brightest kids - who, with the Internet and other resources, can often teach themselves once they get the basics.
(I am not in education, so I expect professionals may scoff at the above...)
Plus the idea those who sent their children to prep school would ever send their children to comprehensives if there were no grammars is also garbage, they would send them to private schools
*selective* vs *non-selective Eh???
You abolish the one, you abolish the other. They're - or were - defined against each other. Deliberately so.
And there are certainly large numbers of children in mainstream schools who for various medical reasons cannot possibly cope and shouldn't be there, and who make life hell for others and damage their education.
But OFSTED are closing all schools for such students, partly because OFSTED are stupid and led by a failed investment manager who is a clear cut safeguarding risk, and partly because the DfE have been saving money by shutting these expensive places to pay for their
boozy partiesother expenses.