"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
I suppose because many schools do not stream by subject and don't have yearly changes. My old comprehensive school which I keep a weather eye on for sentimental reasons and where I have friends who both teach and have children at the school was one of those that decided that they would ony stream by English and Maths. All other subjects are relegated to also rans. That does seem to be the norm in many schools.
I was referring to the first school mentioned above - a streamed comp. Which creates the semi-mythical “Grammar school in every school”
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
People make allegations all the time though and the Police don’t follow each and every one up.
This, along with the whole life tariffs announcement, smacks of desperation. They’ve had 13 years. The mess we are in is under their watch. She, and her predecessors, could have done something about it.
They deserve to lose the next election.
Yep.
Flogging the dead horse harder than you are already flogging it is not a good improvement.
Dead? Dead? That horse is sitting on a shelf in a glue factory warehouse!
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
if i may give my opinion on the Hundred - My main objection for it this year is the scheduling meant the Ashes series had to be squeezed into July - a sorry state of affairs really.
I like T20 so why do I not really like the Hundred? I have thought of this and it comes down to two reasons - 1) it is measured in balls rather than overs - To me of course raised on overs this takes a bit of mental adjustment . I personally think if you want people to be really interested in your product then you should force them to make an initial investment .Asking people to understand the concept of overs is not that hard and then it creates a sense of belonging (every organisation/industry has its jargon of course and there is a reason for that) 2) the daft names means nothing and sound very corporate/american . Franchises do not tear at the soul like geographical areas - Jeff Stelling summed this up once with his sarcastic comment (on TNS winning in the Welsh premier league) - " they will be dancing in the streets of Total Network solutions tonight" Ditch the braves and the fire etc just say Glamorgan or Notts etc
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
We had a similar issue in Gloucester. For boys, Tommy Rich's was and is a fantastic school. But for many years when I was growing up Crypt's results were comparable to those of an average comp.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
I went on an A level Geography field trip to Orielton in Pembrokeshire with some A level students from the Crypt. They were all a bit "Tim, nice but dim".
Comprehensives worked well, when run properly. Since the mid 1980s there has been no political will for them to succeed (Conservative , nor Labour). Over the last decade, quite the opposite. Privatising them via academy groups, making them really poor allows the private sector to develop and flourish, but man, are there some poor private schools out there?
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
Though it does seem to be a more informative rather than confrontational thread than ususal.
How dare you say it's not confrontational?! Sir, I take that as a challenge.
if i may give my opinion on the Hundred - My main objection for it this year is the scheduling meant the Ashes series had to be squeezed into July - a sorry state of affairs really.
I like T20 so why do I not really like the Hundred? I have thought of this and it comes down to two reasons - 1) it is measured in balls rather than overs - To me of course raised on overs this takes a bit of mental adjustment . I personally think if you want people to be really interested in your product then you should force them to make an initial investment .Asking people to understand the concept of overs is not that hard and then it creates a sense of belonging (every organisation/industry has its jargon of course and there is a reason for that) 2) the daft names means nothing and sound very corporate/american . Franchises do not tear at the soul like geographical areas - Jeff Stelling summed this up once with his sarcastic comment (on TNS winning in the Welsh premier league) - " they will be dancing in the streets of Total Network solutions tonight" Ditch the braves and the fire etc just say Glamorgan or Notts etc
If they tried that, the counties being left behind would actually go ballistic.
Particularly given the even more blatant attempt to abolish them in the Strauss review.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
The article is based on research showing that they do not improve, and may indeed worsen academic performance.
Academic performance is only one aspect though, selective schools may well worsen social and economic equality for example.
I have not had time to read the whole article -and thanks for the reference - but I did notice that this piece of research seems to have come from the People's Republic of China.
It seems likely, therefore,that its authors will have started with assumption based on the beliefs of their own education system - very probably that educations means the transmission of information and supposed knowledge as unquestionable truths. A view shared unfortunately by many in the present government, and indeed, by many posters here on PB.
If in fact we start by believing that education really has to do with thinking and questioning and communicating, as well as personal development in the broadest sense, then to base any appraisal only on exam results will behighly misleading. But this is what we have been reduced to.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
I suppose because many schools do not stream by subject and don't have yearly changes. My old comprehensive school which I keep a weather eye on for sentimental reasons and where I have friends who both teach and have children at the school was one of those that decided that they would ony stream by English and Maths. All other subjects are relegated to also rans. That does seem to be the norm in many schools.
I was referring to the first school mentioned above - a streamed comp. Which creates the semi-mythical “Grammar school in every school”
Yep apologies. Again I suspect the issue there is resourcing. I assume it takes a lot more planning, teacher asssessment and just basic cost to do 'proper' streaming.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
It is a truth observed over millennia that mandating a structure and a set of rules doesn’t an organisation make.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
We had a similar issue in Gloucester. For boys, Tommy Rich's was and is a fantastic school. But for many years when I was growing up Crypt's results were comparable to those of an average comp.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
I went on an A level Geography field trip to Orielton in Pembrokeshire with some A level students from the Crypt. They were all a bit "Tim, nice but dim".
Comprehensives worked well, when run properly. Since the mid 1980s there has been no political will for them to succeed (Conservative , nor Labour). Over the last decade, quite the opposite. Privatising them via academy groups, making them really poor allows the private sector to develop and flourish, but man, are there some poor private schools out there?
I don't know what happened there. No IT lessons at my comp?
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
It is a truth observed over millennia that mandating a structure and a set of rules doesn’t an organisation make.
Those pesky humans need training and leadership.
Well, we're in luck then. We have the DfE running education.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
We had a similar issue in Gloucester. For boys, Tommy Rich's was and is a fantastic school. But for many years when I was growing up Crypt's results were comparable to those of an average comp.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
I went on an A level Geography field trip to Orielton in Pembrokeshire with some A level students from the Crypt. They were all a bit "Tim, nice but dim".
Comprehensives worked well, when run properly. Since the mid 1980s there has been no political will for them to succeed (Conservative , nor Labour). Over the last decade, quite the opposite. Privatising them via academy groups, making them really poor allows the private sector to develop and flourish, but man, are there some poor private schools out there?
I don't know what happened there. No IT lessons at my comp?
It's a Vanilla glitch. If you click 'post' while it's trying to auto save, it will post the comment and save the previous auto save below.
There are various ways of getting rid of it. Easiest is select all, delete and type a full stop so it saves that.
if i may give my opinion on the Hundred - My main objection for it this year is the scheduling meant the Ashes series had to be squeezed into July - a sorry state of affairs really.
I like T20 so why do I not really like the Hundred? I have thought of this and it comes down to two reasons - 1) it is measured in balls rather than overs - To me of course raised on overs this takes a bit of mental adjustment . I personally think if you want people to be really interested in your product then you should force them to make an initial investment .Asking people to understand the concept of overs is not that hard and then it creates a sense of belonging (every organisation/industry has its jargon of course and there is a reason for that) 2) the daft names means nothing and sound very corporate/american . Franchises do not tear at the soul like geographical areas - Jeff Stelling summed this up once with his sarcastic comment (on TNS winning in the Welsh premier league) - " they will be dancing in the streets of Total Network solutions tonight" Ditch the braves and the fire etc just say Glamorgan or Notts etc
If they tried that, the counties being left behind would actually go ballistic.
Particularly given the even more blatant attempt to abolish them in the Strauss review.
that may be the third reason then that i dislike it - it is not inclusive!
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
A fair point.
In my school, although it unlikely, you could be in set 1 for Maths and for the sciences and set 7 for English. So you could still flourish in Maths and get extra attention for your English.
In my Grammar school you could be in set B and a Maths genius, but because your English was poor, you would be taught with the maths "dunces" and entered for CSE Maths.
Edit: Sorry again about the chaotic post. Is it my fault or Vanilla? Over and out.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Demand for Russian A-Level tutoring was up this year. Probably MI6 recruiting.
Our younger Ukrainian got Grade 6 and 4 and GCSE Maths and English. Excellent progress considering she spoke almost no English when she arrived with us. The older is concentrating on her professional cosplay career which seems the closest thing to money for nothing I have ever seen. I had to threaten to kill two yobbos in a Focus ST at a petrol station recently when they were eyeballing her Barbie rig of the day.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
A fair point.
In my school, although it unlikely, you could be in set 1 for Maths and for the sciences and set 7 for English. So you could still flourish in Maths and get extra attention for your English.
In my Grammar school you could be in set B and a Maths genius, but because your English was poor, you would be taught with the maths "dunces" and entered for CSE Maths.
Edit: Sorry again about the chaotic post. Is it my fault or Vanilla? Over and out.
That was what happened in my private school - your aptitude for the subject determined your stream for that subject.
A stream for Maths and C for geography could happen.
The other thing that was important was that it was specifically made clear that getting children into the next group up was the mission of the B and C streams. Letting them rot wasn’t the plan.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
Though it does seem to be a more informative rather than confrontational thread than ususal.
How dare you say it's not confrontational?! Sir, I take that as a challenge.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
I suppose because many schools do not stream by subject and don't have yearly changes. My old comprehensive school which I keep a weather eye on for sentimental reasons and where I have friends who both teach and have children at the school was one of those that decided that they would ony stream by English and Maths. All other subjects are relegated to also rans. That does seem to be the norm in many schools.
I was referring to the first school mentioned above - a streamed comp. Which creates the semi-mythical “Grammar school in every school”
Yep apologies. Again I suspect the issue there is resourcing. I assume it takes a lot more planning, teacher asssessment and just basic cost to do 'proper' streaming.
It does Richard. My father was involved in timetabling, and lining up teachers, classrooms and other resources over 7 sets in 5 year groups was not easy. But this is where the resourcing came in.
Comprehensive education for the most part failed. But there has been a political desire to make it fail.
The one key ingredient of both private and a grammar education is the instillation of confidence, certainly for the brighter pupils. Comps haven't done that for decades. I guess that is what the private school parent is paying for.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
Though it does seem to be a more informative rather than confrontational thread than ususal.
How dare you say it's not confrontational?! Sir, I take that as a challenge.
Trump remains likely to get the GOP nomination again even if convicted. However the general election is a different matter with polls clear that independents and centrist voters would desert him in that instance. The RNC could even change the rules pre convention to stop him getting the formal nomination therefore.
Biden will likely run again regardless. Independents and Democrats would support him against a convicted Trump and much of the Trump base would stay home if Trump was not the nominee
Setting in all subjects is of course possible and desirable. But, rather like investigating all crimes it requires more funding, and, crucially, more people. (The days of teachers having "free periods" and thus available), have long gone. Let alone TA's on zero hours, minimum wage with unpaid breaks, who have the necessary academic skills to assist those with special needs, or who are either gifted or struggling. We spend aeons of time debating structures. But, as with much in this country, it ends up being what is cheapest, by default.*
*Although, ironically, a decent wage for all support staff so that they were permanent and skilled for the role would be cheaper than employing anyone at all with a DBS on supply on a day-by-day basis as happens now.
if i may give my opinion on the Hundred - My main objection for it this year is the scheduling meant the Ashes series had to be squeezed into July - a sorry state of affairs really.
I like T20 so why do I not really like the Hundred? I have thought of this and it comes down to two reasons - 1) it is measured in balls rather than overs - To me of course raised on overs this takes a bit of mental adjustment . I personally think if you want people to be really interested in your product then you should force them to make an initial investment .Asking people to understand the concept of overs is not that hard and then it creates a sense of belonging (every organisation/industry has its jargon of course and there is a reason for that) 2) the daft names means nothing and sound very corporate/american . Franchises do not tear at the soul like geographical areas - Jeff Stelling summed this up once with his sarcastic comment (on TNS winning in the Welsh premier league) - " they will be dancing in the streets of Total Network solutions tonight" Ditch the braves and the fire etc just say Glamorgan or Notts etc
If they tried that, the counties being left behind would actually go ballistic.
Particularly given the even more blatant attempt to abolish them in the Strauss review.
The whole reason for the ‘franchises’, is that they’re nothing to do with the existing county structure. Everything’s run by the ECB subsidiary, who simply rent out the grounds for the matches and take the ticket revenue for themselves.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
Though it does seem to be a more informative rather than confrontational thread than ususal.
How dare you say it's not confrontational?! Sir, I take that as a challenge.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
We had a similar issue in Gloucester. For boys, Tommy Rich's was and is a fantastic school. But for many years when I was growing up Crypt's results were comparable to those of an average comp.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
I went on an A level Geography field trip to Orielton in Pembrokeshire with some A level students from the Crypt. They were all a bit "Tim, nice but dim".
Comprehensives worked well, when run properly. Since the mid 1980s there has been no political will for them to succeed (Conservative , nor Labour). Over the last decade, quite the opposite. Privatising them via academy groups, making them really poor allows the private sector to develop and flourish, but man, are there some poor private schools out there?
The evidence is academies and free schools get better exam results than comprehensives on average
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
I suppose because many schools do not stream by subject and don't have yearly changes. My old comprehensive school which I keep a weather eye on for sentimental reasons and where I have friends who both teach and have children at the school was one of those that decided that they would ony stream by English and Maths. All other subjects are relegated to also rans. That does seem to be the norm in many schools.
And, actually, I agree (again - this is slightly disturbing) that this is not a great idea from an educational perspective.
However - as @Fysics_Teacher pointed out to us a few weeks back, one key problem is the timetabling. Setting each subject makes it much harder.
So they prioritise English and above all maths (where teaching mixed ability is both difficult and damaging) because they are the subjects the government rate double for league tables.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
A fair point.
In my school, although it unlikely, you could be in set 1 for Maths and for the sciences and set 7 for English. So you could still flourish in Maths and get extra attention for your English.
In my Grammar school you could be in set B and a Maths genius, but because your English was poor, you would be taught with the maths "dunces" and entered for CSE Maths.
Edit: Sorry again about the chaotic post. Is it my fault or Vanilla? Over and out.
That was what happened in my private school - your aptitude for the subject determined your stream for that subject.
A stream for Maths and C for geography could happen.
The other thing that was important was that it was specifically made clear that getting children into the next group up was the mission of the B and C streams. Letting them rot wasn’t the plan.
At my grammar school it was a free for all up to the two O level years. If you didn't do well in the year 3 (old money) exams, that was it, the B stream and labelled "thick"by the teachers. Such a system wasn't unique to my school. Reputation rested with the high flyers.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
Of course, if they wanted to reduce crime rates they *could* start by properly investigating crimes committed by their own officers.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
We had a similar issue in Gloucester. For boys, Tommy Rich's was and is a fantastic school. But for many years when I was growing up Crypt's results were comparable to those of an average comp.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
I went on an A level Geography field trip to Orielton in Pembrokeshire with some A level students from the Crypt. They were all a bit "Tim, nice but dim".
Comprehensives worked well, when run properly. Since the mid 1980s there has been no political will for them to succeed (Conservative , nor Labour). Over the last decade, quite the opposite. Privatising them via academy groups, making them really poor allows the private sector to develop and flourish, but man, are there some poor private schools out there?
The evidence is academies and free schools get better exam results than comprehensives on average
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
I suppose because many schools do not stream by subject and don't have yearly changes. My old comprehensive school which I keep a weather eye on for sentimental reasons and where I have friends who both teach and have children at the school was one of those that decided that they would ony stream by English and Maths. All other subjects are relegated to also rans. That does seem to be the norm in many schools.
And, actually, I agree (again - this is slightly disturbing) that this is not a great idea from an educational perspective.
However - as @Fysics_Teacher pointed out to us a few weeks back, one key problem is the timetabling. Setting each subject makes it much harder.
So they prioritise English and above all maths (where teaching mixed ability is both difficult and damaging) because they are the subjects the government rate double for league tables.
The EBACC at least adds other subjects too
Without wishing to get into the usual sterile debate where your views on education meet this thing called reality with unfortunate consequences for reality, did you not realise that I was referring to the EBacc with that comment?
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
The suggestion is that they should be spending their resources more on car thefts and shoplifting, which come with significant economic consequences, and fewer on trying to police Twitter.
Setting in all subjects is of course possible and desirable. But, rather like investigating all crimes it requires more funding, and, crucially, more people. (The days of teachers having "free periods" and thus available), have long gone. Let alone TA's on zero hours, minimum wage with unpaid breaks, who have the necessary academic skills to assist those with special needs, or who are either gifted or struggling. We spend aeons of time debating structures. But, as with much in this country, it ends up being what is cheapest, by default.*
*Although, ironically, a decent wage for all support staff so that they were permanent and skilled for the role would be cheaper than employing anyone at all with a DBS on supply on a day-by-day basis as happens now.
How dare you suggest a sensible solution sir?
Why, next you'll be suggesting OFSTED employ inspectors who are (a) experts in what they're inspecting and (b) won't take advantage of being inspectors to grope the children.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
We had a similar issue in Gloucester. For boys, Tommy Rich's was and is a fantastic school. But for many years when I was growing up Crypt's results were comparable to those of an average comp.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
I went on an A level Geography field trip to Orielton in Pembrokeshire with some A level students from the Crypt. They were all a bit "Tim, nice but dim".
Comprehensives worked well, when run properly. Since the mid 1980s there has been no political will for them to succeed (Conservative , nor Labour). Over the last decade, quite the opposite. Privatising them via academy groups, making them really poor allows the private sector to develop and flourish, but man, are there some poor private schools out there?
The evidence is academies and free schools get better exam results than comprehensives on average
Forgive me for my skepticism for your statistics, but I know how smoke and mirrors work.
HY, you are the future. I am the past. I have no desire to go back to school, particularly grammar school. I hated it when I was there, so it won't affect me, one way or the other. Fill yer boots. But it isn't the path this old dog would follow.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
Of course, if they wanted to reduce crime rates they *could* start by properly investigating crimes committed by their own officers.
Well quite. To give a parallel you'd relate to, the policing announcement is rather like the DfE suddenly announcing that class sizes will cut by 25% without telling us where they're going to find the money or teachers or classrooms.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
Of course, if they wanted to reduce crime rates they *could* start by properly investigating crimes committed by their own officers.
Well quite. To give a parallel you'd relate to, the policing announcement is rather like the DfE suddenly announcing that class sizes will cut by 25% without telling us where they're going to find the money or teachers or classrooms.
If the DfE cut themselves by 100% without replacing them, it might not cut class sizes but it sure as hell would reduce workload.
And that's definitely within their power. All they have to do is commit mass hara kiri.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
Though it does seem to be a more informative rather than confrontational thread than ususal.
How dare you say it's not confrontational?! Sir, I take that as a challenge.
Ok, how much is it, for an argument, then?
I’ve told you once.
No you haven't!
This isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction.
I had too much to drink at the races on Saturday, weigh too much, and had to spend all of Sunday in bed.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
The suggestion is that they should be spending their resources more on car thefts and shoplifting, which come with significant economic consequences, and fewer on trying to police Twitter.
I've no idea what proportion of police resources are spent on 'policing Twitter', but I'd guess it's pretty small. Even if it isn't, I reckon it would still be a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of investigating every reported shoplifting, car theft, anti-social behaviour etc.
Anyway, I'm off for my walk now. I shall be phoning the rozzers if I see any new graffiti and shall expect them to take action - perpetrators bound to be on some CCTV.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
Of course, if they wanted to reduce crime rates they *could* start by properly investigating crimes committed by their own officers.
Well quite. To give a parallel you'd relate to, the policing announcement is rather like the DfE suddenly announcing that class sizes will cut by 25% without telling us where they're going to find the money or teachers or classrooms.
If the DfE cut themselves by 100% without replacing them, it might not cut class sizes but it sure as hell would reduce workload.
And that's definitely within their power. All they have to do is commit mass hara kiri.
You think the DfE are capable of doing that effectively?
Gosh, you're in a mellow mood this morning. Must be the end of The You-Know-What.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
So despite the misleading headline and the clear desire by the left liberal authors to show that it offers no case for new grammars, read the small print and you find that astoundingly their report finds areas with grammar schools get higher overall GCSE passes than non selective areas.
Adding to the evidence that 96% of those on free school meals get a GCSE pass in grammars to just 86% of equivalent ability in non selective schools
"Grammar schools 'can transform white working class areas'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article- 3888312/amp/Grammars- transform-white-working- class-areas-Report-says-schools-enable-children- achieve-middle-class- backgrounds.html
Plus of course the clear evidence that areas with grammar schools are more likely to get pupils into Oxbridge and elite universities than non selective areas
Have we noted that on R4 Today this morning was a thoughtful piece on pizzas generally including the question on pineapple on pizza.
The view of a Michelin starred chef was that the pineapple question was culturally relational, but that in Naples you would be shot.
The view (the correct one) that all pizzas are cheese on toast, sometimes with minor enhancements and should never cost more than 50p which is more than they are worth was, as usual, not represented.
Have we noted that on R4 Today this morning was a thoughtful piece on pizzas generally including the question on pineapple on pizza.
The view of a Michelin starred chef was that the pineapple question was culturally relational, but that in Naples you would be shot.
The view (the correct one) that all pizzas are cheese on toast, sometimes with minor enhancements and should never cost more than 50p which is more than they are worth was, as usual, not represented.
I think one thing we can agree on is that PBers (not you, in this case) who drone on about pineapples on pizza desperately need some new material.
Have we noted that on R4 Today this morning was a thoughtful piece on pizzas generally including the question on pineapple on pizza.
The view of a Michelin starred chef was that the pineapple question was culturally relational, but that in Naples you would be shot.
The view (the correct one) that all pizzas are cheese on toast, sometimes with minor enhancements and should never cost more than 50p which is more than they are worth was, as usual, not represented.
I think one thing we can agree on is that PBers (not you, in this case) who drone on about pineapples on pizza desperately need some new material.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
We had a similar issue in Gloucester. For boys, Tommy Rich's was and is a fantastic school. But for many years when I was growing up Crypt's results were comparable to those of an average comp.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
I went on an A level Geography field trip to Orielton in Pembrokeshire with some A level students from the Crypt. They were all a bit "Tim, nice but dim".
Comprehensives worked well, when run properly. Since the mid 1980s there has been no political will for them to succeed (Conservative , nor Labour). Over the last decade, quite the opposite. Privatising them via academy groups, making them really poor allows the private sector to develop and flourish, but man, are there some poor private schools out there?
The evidence is academies and free schools get better exam results than comprehensives on average
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
I think that was quite probably my fault. I do apologise.
I should think so too. Have you any idea the restraint I am having to put into not posting and knowing me I won't let it go and it will spread to the next 3 threads.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
Of course, if they wanted to reduce crime rates they *could* start by properly investigating crimes committed by their own officers.
I guess that's also a funding issue to some extent. If you can afford to pay more, you can be pickier about who you employ.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
The suggestion is that they should be spending their resources more on car thefts and shoplifting, which come with significant economic consequences, and fewer on trying to police Twitter.
I've no idea what proportion of police resources are spent on 'policing Twitter', but I'd guess it's pretty small. Even if it isn't, I reckon it would still be a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of investigating every reported shoplifting, car theft, anti-social behaviour etc.
Anyway, I'm off for my walk now. I shall be phoning the rozzers if I see any new graffiti and shall expect them to take action - perpetrators bound to be on some CCTV.
“Perpetrators bound to be on some CCTV” is different from “Here’s the CCTV showing clear images of the perpetrators, we know them well and they’re out on bail for similar offences”.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
The interesting scenario is if the Trump trials actually happen and DJT gets into serious trouble.
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
You're assuming the party is monolithic. As Robert regularly points out, it's not.
It's hard to put numbers in it, but there are Trump cultists, Trump haters, and those who might like what he peddles, but would be fine with someone else delivering it if they have a better chance of being elected.
If Trump isn't the candidate, the the GOP needs someone extreme enough to get the cultists to turn out, yet moderate enough not to completely alienate the centre. I'm not convinced that's possible.
Ramaswamy seems to be positioning himself as the "Trumpism without Trump" candidate. If Trump stays in, it's a losing strategy, but he seems well-placed to pick up many of Trump's votes if the Great One goes. But he is a bit far along the kookiness axis at the moment - needs to rein in the anti-vax stuff which even Trump has steered clear of.
Trumpism without Trump might get the nomination. I don't think it can win the general election..
Trumpism without Trump was supposed to be Ron DeSantis's schtick but he went way over the top. Ramaswamy risks doing the same.
RDS went too far by being deliberately obnoxious. That is something Trump does well, but with RDS it just appeared desperate.
Ramaswamy I'm worried about, I think he's dangerous.
Listen to what he's peddling, like on Ukraine, then as someone who wants to see Russia defeated and the west including Ukraine defended what he is saying is absolutely awful.
But he's saying it in a way that sounds legitimate. In a way that sounds intelligent, considered.
Thankfully I don't think he'll get anywhere near the nomination, but if he did I'd be worried he might actually win.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
The article is based on research showing that they do not improve, and may indeed worsen academic performance.
Academic performance is only one aspect though, selective schools may well worsen social and economic equality for example.
I have not had time to read the whole article -and thanks for the reference - but I did notice that this piece of research seems to have come from the People's Republic of China.
It seems likely, therefore,that its authors will have started with assumption based on the beliefs of their own education system - very probably that educations means the transmission of information and supposed knowledge as unquestionable truths. A view shared unfortunately by many in the present government, and indeed, by many posters here on PB.
If in fact we start by believing that education really has to do with thinking and questioning and communicating, as well as personal development in the broadest sense, then to base any appraisal only on exam results will behighly misleading. But this is what we have been reduced to.
One out of four with an address in the PRC. And a little checking on Orcid shows that he was at Durham University very recently. Where one of the coauthors of the current paper is, perhaps his PhD supervisor, and where the paper was probably generated.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
So despite the misleading headline and the clear desire by the left liberal authors to show that it offers no case for new grammars, read the small print and you find that astoundingly their report finds areas with grammar schools get higher overall GCSE passes than non selective areas.
Adding to the evidence that 96% of those on free school meals get a GCSE pass in grammars to just 86% of equivalent ability in non selective schools
"Grammar schools 'can transform white working class areas'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article- 3888312/amp/Grammars- transform-white-working- class-areas-Report-says-schools-enable-children- achieve-middle-class- backgrounds.html
Plus of course the clear evidence that areas with grammar schools are more likely to get pupils into Oxbridge and elite universities than non selective areas
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
The suggestion is that they should be spending their resources more on car thefts and shoplifting, which come with significant economic consequences, and fewer on trying to police Twitter.
I've no idea what proportion of police resources are spent on 'policing Twitter', but I'd guess it's pretty small. Even if it isn't, I reckon it would still be a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of investigating every reported shoplifting, car theft, anti-social behaviour etc.
Anyway, I'm off for my walk now. I shall be phoning the rozzers if I see any new graffiti and shall expect them to take action - perpetrators bound to be on some CCTV.
“Perpetrators bound to be on some CCTV” is different from “Here’s the CCTV showing clear images of the perpetrators, we know them well and they’re out on bail for similar offences”.
The problem is the Police don't even bother looking for CCTV, just give a crime reference number and close the case. Push an issue and the Police may tell you to look into CCTV and get back to them if you find any, but then Data Protection laws means that premises can't share CCTV without a Police order, which the Police won't give if they're not investigating the issue. Complete Catch-22 nightmare.
I had an issue 14 years ago (tail end of Labour government, before Tory "cuts") where my previous car was vandalised. I reported it to the Police and got the usual spiel about crime reference number. I pointed out where it was parked there were multiple businesses nearby with CCTV and they might have caught the offenders - I was told to investigate it myself and come back them if I got CCTV footage. Went to the businesses who all said same thing: can't share our CCTV footage as its against the law (which it is).
Yes investigating crimes may be difficult or time consuming, but that's what the Police are there to do. Getting them to outsource their jobs to victims is no solution. And given the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed by the same very few people, identifying and getting those few people off the streets would cut a lot of crimes out, thus remove the need for them to investigate those anymore.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You were the one who suggested abolishing them,but identified a couple of problems. I've suggested remedying one of the two probvlems - which is pretty implicit in terms of abolishing 'free schools' which would include church schools under any sensible analysis anyway, so I didn't even need to flag it up come to think fo it.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I have clearly underestimated the government, in particular Suella Braverman.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
I don't wish to defend Suella, but it bloody would be round here.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
But it's still a statement of the bleedin' obvious that the police should investigate all crimes. My point really is that it begs the questions: 1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and 2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
The suggestion is that they should be spending their resources more on car thefts and shoplifting, which come with significant economic consequences, and fewer on trying to police Twitter.
I've no idea what proportion of police resources are spent on 'policing Twitter', but I'd guess it's pretty small. Even if it isn't, I reckon it would still be a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of investigating every reported shoplifting, car theft, anti-social behaviour etc.
Anyway, I'm off for my walk now. I shall be phoning the rozzers if I see any new graffiti and shall expect them to take action - perpetrators bound to be on some CCTV.
According to police bloggers, social media policing is liked by the Senior Management Team since it creates a hate crime and solves it in one smooth move. This looks really good in the stats. Which is how the SMT get those abstract art awards that cost so much to build shelves for. And promotion.
Russia freaked out at an American high-level drone watching, and sent fighters out to take a look, Moscow’s airports were closed again overnight, and an annual Russian military exercise has been cancelled due to lack of availability of troops and equipment.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I suspect Ms Braverman's version of an official circular will be a word to the Sun or the Mail about how the Police must do this.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
So despite the misleading headline and the clear desire by the left liberal authors to show that it offers no case for new grammars, read the small print and you find that astoundingly their report finds areas with grammar schools get higher overall GCSE passes than non selective areas.
Adding to the evidence that 96% of those on free school meals get a GCSE pass in grammars to just 86% of equivalent ability in non selective schools
"Grammar schools 'can transform white working class areas'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article- 3888312/amp/Grammars- transform-white-working- class-areas-Report-says-schools-enable-children- achieve-middle-class- backgrounds.html
Plus of course the clear evidence that areas with grammar schools are more likely to get pupils into Oxbridge and elite universities than non selective areas
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I suspect Ms Braverman's version of an official circular will be a word to the Sun or the Mail about how the Police must do this.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
There's a piece in the Graun suggesting that it's partly the supermarkets' fault if shoplifting is increasing - somewhat startling.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You were the one who suggested abolishing them,but identified a couple of problems. I've suggested remedying one of the two probvlems - which is pretty implicit in terms of abolishing 'free schools' which would include church schools under any sensible analysis anyway, so I didn't even need to flag it up come to think fo it.
No I said socialists were wrong on their ideological insistence on educational equality and one size fits all comprehensive education.
It does not and never will exist. Hence we need more choice for parents, not least in the poorest areas where an excellent free school or church school offers real choice beyond a very average or below average comprehensive
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
Today is #HowardCox day, when at midnight he turns from a wazzock into a pumpkin.
Tomorrow, just under 100% (I make it 97% but won't quibble) of the population of London discover that they are entirely unaffected by the ULEZ expansion.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
WRT today's nonsense about thefts, we can now add another to the current list of things obvious to everyone apart from those charged with doing them:
The NHS is tasked with ensuring that staff don't murder patients.
The CCRC is tasked with ensuring that people who may have been unjustly convicted are brought back to the Court of Appeal for consideration.
Building regulation and enforcement exists so that people don't burn to death in their own homes because of how things have been built.
Police investigate crimes.
It is quite hard to see which bits of this require further action apart from just getting on with it.
Museums should ensure that objects in their care don't get damaged or stolen.
(I see that the British Museum's director in charge of security is till in post.)
PS Mozzarella and San Marzano tomatoes belong on pizza. Pineapple does not. Nor anything else frankly.
TBF it depends what sort of security the BM director is in charge of, in terms of his remit. Could be fire, breakins, terrorism, gallery attendants, etc., rather than inside jobs on the collection.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
Quite so. Anyone referring to it in UK political discourse is either ignorant, mendacious or utterly, utterly cruel.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I suspect Ms Braverman's version of an official circular will be a word to the Sun or the Mail about how the Police must do this.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
There's a piece in the Graun suggesting that it's partly the supermarkets' fault if shoplifting is increasing - somewhat startling.
You’re surprised to see a Grauniad writer saying that “the cost of living crisis” is an excuse for shoplifting, and that the stores need to hire more of their own police?
But somehow they never publish articles saying that the girl in the provotive outfit can’t complain when she gets harassed in a bar, or that the homeowner who only has one lock on his front door deserves to be burgled.
The job of the police is to investigate offences, whether of theft or harrasment, and blaming the victim of crime is not a good idea.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
Quite so. Anyone referring to it in UK political discourse is either ignorant, mendacious or utterly, utterly cruel.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
Crime fell yes, especially in New York city.
We can build more prisons too
We can’t staff them though. We can’t staff what we’ve got already.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
Quite so. Anyone referring to it in UK political discourse is either ignorant, mendacious or utterly, utterly cruel.
...in other words, tory MPs...
The reference to 'three strikes and out' is clearly to the US policy as the current UK jurisdictions already provide for repeat offencing in their sentencing guidelines.
And as the US policy is completely impossible here, anyone going "three strikes three strikes three strikes and out" is talking complete nonsense anyway. Or worse.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
Yes, the “three strikes” rule refers to three felonies, the UK equivalent being offences triable at the Crown Court. The effect being to push prosecutors to send a relatively minor third offence to that court.
The UK problem is low-level theft, what Americans would call misdemeanors (without the ‘u’), which are either not being prosecuted at all, or are resulting in offenders receiving continual bail. An assumption that someone charged with an offence whilst on bail for another, should be remanded in custody, would deal with a lot of the problem, which comes from a relatively small number of offenders with house burglaries and car thefts.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I suspect Ms Braverman's version of an official circular will be a word to the Sun or the Mail about how the Police must do this.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
There's a piece in the Graun suggesting that it's partly the supermarkets' fault if shoplifting is increasing - somewhat startling.
You’re surprised to see a Grauniad writer saying that “the cost of living crisis” is an excuse for shoplifting, and that the stores need to hire more of their own police?
But somehow they never publish articles saying that the girl in the provotive outfit can’t complain when she gets harassed in a bar, or that the homeowner who only has one lock on his front door deserves to be burgled.
The job of the police is to investigate offences, whether of theft or harrasment, and blaming the victim of crime is not a good idea.
Oh I said it was startling - never mind where it is published - but there are some interesting point sin there, notably that the nature of crime is shifting.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
So despite the misleading headline and the clear desire by the left liberal authors to show that it offers no case for new grammars, read the small print and you find that astoundingly their report finds areas with grammar schools get higher overall GCSE passes than non selective areas.
Adding to the evidence that 96% of those on free school meals get a GCSE pass in grammars to just 86% of equivalent ability in non selective schools
"Grammar schools 'can transform white working class areas'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article- 3888312/amp/Grammars- transform-white-working- class-areas-Report-says-schools-enable-children- achieve-middle-class- backgrounds.html
Plus of course the clear evidence that areas with grammar schools are more likely to get pupils into Oxbridge and elite universities than non selective areas
Today is #HowardCox day, when at midnight he turns from a wazzock into a pumpkin.
Tomorrow, just under 100% (I make it 97% but won't quibble) of the population of London discover that they are entirely unaffected by the ULEZ expansion.
Today is #HowardCox day, when at midnight he turns from a wazzock into a pumpkin.
Tomorrow, just under 100% (I make it 97% but won't quibble) of the population of London discover that they are entirely unaffected by the ULEZ expansion.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You were the one who suggested abolishing them,but identified a couple of problems. I've suggested remedying one of the two probvlems - which is pretty implicit in terms of abolishing 'free schools' which would include church schools under any sensible analysis anyway, so I didn't even need to flag it up come to think fo it.
The free schools round my neck of the woods have been very successful in getting middle class parents to opt back into the system.
Comically, a complaint is that their intake isn’t diverse enough. Diversity being measured as children on free school meals. So a school where white British parents are a minority (West London demographics) is not diverse. Quite apart from the whole point being to create schools good enough to ge
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I suspect Ms Braverman's version of an official circular will be a word to the Sun or the Mail about how the Police must do this.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
There's a piece in the Graun suggesting that it's partly the supermarkets' fault if shoplifting is increasing - somewhat startling.
You’re surprised to see a Grauniad writer saying that “the cost of living crisis” is an excuse for shoplifting, and that the stores need to hire more of their own police?
But somehow they never publish articles saying that the girl in the provotive outfit can’t complain when she gets harassed in a bar, or that the homeowner who only has one lock on his front door deserves to be burgled.
The job of the police is to investigate offences, whether of theft or harrasment, and blaming the victim of crime is not a good idea.
I’m quite sure that the next generation of stores will meet with the Guardians approval. Not.
Amazon (and others) are trialling a store entry system, where you can’t physically enter the store without signing in, via your account.
The existing Amazon Fresh stores just have a turnstile you can jump over. These have double access doors, with sensors. Only one person can enter the vestibule at a time, verify and then you are in.
Once inside the system senses anything you take and adds it to your bill.
The usual suspects are already saying this is “hostile” to local people. As in, this makes shop lifting really hard.
This is a reaction to defacto legalisation of shop lifting. Which is a reaction to the incidents of racial profiling etc by police and issues with illegal actions by store security.
The above system removes all human interaction with would be shoplifters - so answers the problem about racism and violence on both sides.
The Guardian hand wringers will denounce this, and wonder where such as system came from.
Today is #HowardCox day, when at midnight he turns from a wazzock into a pumpkin.
Tomorrow, just under 100% (I make it 97% but won't quibble) of the population of London discover that they are entirely unaffected by the ULEZ expansion.
Wait until hundreds of thousands of fines start dropping on random doors across the country in the next few months, from people who know nothing about this ‘scheme’ until that point. People who just dropped their friend at the airport, or met an old friend for a drink.
Then there’s the tens of thousands more who will get a deluge of fines, because their number plates got cloned, and find the burden of proof pretty is much reversed in civil court. Obviously none of them will have anything to say to the press on the matter.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You were the one who suggested abolishing them,but identified a couple of problems. I've suggested remedying one of the two probvlems - which is pretty implicit in terms of abolishing 'free schools' which would include church schools under any sensible analysis anyway, so I didn't even need to flag it up come to think fo it.
The free schools round my neck of the woods have been very successful in getting middle class parents to opt back into the system.
Comically, a complaint is that their intake isn’t diverse enough. Diversity being measured as children on free school meals. So a school where white British parents are a minority (West London demographics) is not diverse. Quite apart from the whole point being to create schools good enough to ge
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I suspect Ms Braverman's version of an official circular will be a word to the Sun or the Mail about how the Police must do this.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
There's a piece in the Graun suggesting that it's partly the supermarkets' fault if shoplifting is increasing - somewhat startling.
You’re surprised to see a Grauniad writer saying that “the cost of living crisis” is an excuse for shoplifting, and that the stores need to hire more of their own police?
But somehow they never publish articles saying that the girl in the provotive outfit can’t complain when she gets harassed in a bar, or that the homeowner who only has one lock on his front door deserves to be burgled.
The job of the police is to investigate offences, whether of theft or harrasment, and blaming the victim of crime is not a good idea.
I’m quite sure that the next generation of stores will meet with the Guardians approval. Not.
Amazon (and others) are trialling a store entry system, where you can’t physically enter the store without signing in, via your account.
The existing Amazon Fresh stores just have a turnstile you can jump over. These have double access doors, with sensors. Only one person can enter the vestibule at a time, verify and then you are in.
Once inside the system senses anything you take and adds it to your bill.
The usual suspects are already saying this is “hostile” to local people. As in, this makes shop lifting really hard.
This is a reaction to defacto legalisation of shop lifting. Which is a reaction to the incidents of racial profiling etc by police and issues with illegal actions by store security.
The above system removes all human interaction with would be shoplifters - so answers the problem about racism and violence on both sides.
The Guardian hand wringers will denounce this, and wonder where such as system came from.
Being on FSM triggers Pupil Premium funding. So large numbers not on FSM dilutes the amount of money to spend per child for everyone, and makes the school's job more difficult. "Diversity" is simply a convenient excuse for this is costing us.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
Yes, the “three strikes” rule refers to three felonies, the UK equivalent being offences triable at the Crown Court. The effect being to push prosecutors to send a relatively minor third offence to that court.
The UK problem is low-level theft, what Americans would call misdemeanors (without the ‘u’), which are either not being prosecuted at all, or are resulting in offenders receiving continual bail. An assumption that someone charged with an offence whilst on bail for another, should be remanded in custody, would deal with a lot of the problem, which comes from a relatively small number of offenders with house burglaries and car thefts.
Because of the relatively poor return per crime, burglaries are often committed on an… industrious scale.
Some years ago, when I was living in Wiltshire, they locked up a chap. Overnight, burglary dropped by about 30% in the area. Apparently he and his friends would target commuter areas. Wait until people left for work. Then smash their way into a a dozen houses in a morning. Each working day….
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
Hence we need 3 strikes and you are out and will then get a significant prison sentence for thieves
How does that happen once the courts are even fuller than they are now? Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
The three strikes policy is a notorious failure in the US. It hasn't reduced crime and has resulted in people receiving extreme sentances for minor infractions.
American problems go much, much deeper than the three strikes policy. The three strikes policy compounds their other failures - racial bias, the plea bargain system, ability to defend yourself being a matter of wealth, drug prohibition etc
Just like with healthcare or other issues, the idea we need one extreme or the American other extreme isn't true. We need a middle ground.
Repeat offenders need to be incarcerated for a reasonable amount of time, they don't need to be released via a revolving door, nor incarcerated for life.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You were the one who suggested abolishing them,but identified a couple of problems. I've suggested remedying one of the two probvlems - which is pretty implicit in terms of abolishing 'free schools' which would include church schools under any sensible analysis anyway, so I didn't even need to flag it up come to think fo it.
The free schools round my neck of the woods have been very successful in getting middle class parents to opt back into the system.
Comically, a complaint is that their intake isn’t diverse enough. Diversity being measured as children on free school meals. So a school where white British parents are a minority (West London demographics) is not diverse. Quite apart from the whole point being to create schools good enough to ge
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I suspect Ms Braverman's version of an official circular will be a word to the Sun or the Mail about how the Police must do this.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
There's a piece in the Graun suggesting that it's partly the supermarkets' fault if shoplifting is increasing - somewhat startling.
You’re surprised to see a Grauniad writer saying that “the cost of living crisis” is an excuse for shoplifting, and that the stores need to hire more of their own police?
But somehow they never publish articles saying that the girl in the provotive outfit can’t complain when she gets harassed in a bar, or that the homeowner who only has one lock on his front door deserves to be burgled.
The job of the police is to investigate offences, whether of theft or harrasment, and blaming the victim of crime is not a good idea.
I’m quite sure that the next generation of stores will meet with the Guardians approval. Not.
Amazon (and others) are trialling a store entry system, where you can’t physically enter the store without signing in, via your account.
The existing Amazon Fresh stores just have a turnstile you can jump over. These have double access doors, with sensors. Only one person can enter the vestibule at a time, verify and then you are in.
Once inside the system senses anything you take and adds it to your bill.
The usual suspects are already saying this is “hostile” to local people. As in, this makes shop lifting really hard.
This is a reaction to defacto legalisation of shop lifting. Which is a reaction to the incidents of racial profiling etc by police and issues with illegal actions by store security.
The above system removes all human interaction with would be shoplifters - so answers the problem about racism and violence on both sides.
The Guardian hand wringers will denounce this, and wonder where such as system came from.
Absolutely.
Anecdote. At the World’s Fair in the sandpit last year, they had a few such experimental stores for drinks and snacks. You swiped your card on the way in, everything you picked up was logged by sensors and cameras, and you either agreed the bill and hit a button to be allowed out, or else waited for the assistant. One person at a time in the small shop.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You were the one who suggested abolishing them,but identified a couple of problems. I've suggested remedying one of the two probvlems - which is pretty implicit in terms of abolishing 'free schools' which would include church schools under any sensible analysis anyway, so I didn't even need to flag it up come to think fo it.
The free schools round my neck of the woods have been very successful in getting middle class parents to opt back into the system.
Comically, a complaint is that their intake isn’t diverse enough. Diversity being measured as children on free school meals. So a school where white British parents are a minority (West London demographics) is not diverse. Quite apart from the whole point being to create schools good enough to ge
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
I'm just wondering exactly what wording Ms Braverman will use in the official circular. And what crimes it will cover.
I suspect Ms Braverman's version of an official circular will be a word to the Sun or the Mail about how the Police must do this.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
There's a piece in the Graun suggesting that it's partly the supermarkets' fault if shoplifting is increasing - somewhat startling.
You’re surprised to see a Grauniad writer saying that “the cost of living crisis” is an excuse for shoplifting, and that the stores need to hire more of their own police?
But somehow they never publish articles saying that the girl in the provotive outfit can’t complain when she gets harassed in a bar, or that the homeowner who only has one lock on his front door deserves to be burgled.
The job of the police is to investigate offences, whether of theft or harrasment, and blaming the victim of crime is not a good idea.
I’m quite sure that the next generation of stores will meet with the Guardians approval. Not.
Amazon (and others) are trialling a store entry system, where you can’t physically enter the store without signing in, via your account.
The existing Amazon Fresh stores just have a turnstile you can jump over. These have double access doors, with sensors. Only one person can enter the vestibule at a time, verify and then you are in.
Once inside the system senses anything you take and adds it to your bill.
The usual suspects are already saying this is “hostile” to local people. As in, this makes shop lifting really hard.
This is a reaction to defacto legalisation of shop lifting. Which is a reaction to the incidents of racial profiling etc by police and issues with illegal actions by store security.
The above system removes all human interaction with would be shoplifters - so answers the problem about racism and violence on both sides.
The Guardian hand wringers will denounce this, and wonder where such as system came from.
Being on FSM triggers Pupil Premium funding. So large numbers not on FSM dilutes the amount of money to spend per child for everyone, and makes the school's job more difficult. "Diversity" is simply a convenient excuse for this is costing us.
Today is #HowardCox day, when at midnight he turns from a wazzock into a pumpkin.
Tomorrow, just under 100% (I make it 97% but won't quibble) of the population of London discover that they are entirely unaffected by the ULEZ expansion.
I am generally in favour of the ULEZ idea although I think it has been badly implemented.
But someone working for the London Mayor really should be shot for the stupid lack of legal advice they have taken over signage as reported in the DM today (And no I don't read the DM usually but this came up on my MSN feed).
Comments
I like T20 so why do I not really like the Hundred? I have thought of this and it comes down to two reasons - 1) it is measured in balls rather than overs - To me of course raised on overs this takes a bit of mental adjustment . I personally think if you want people to be really interested in your product then you should force them to make an initial investment .Asking people to understand the concept of overs is not that hard and then it creates a sense of belonging (every organisation/industry has its jargon of course and there is a reason for that) 2) the daft names means nothing and sound very corporate/american . Franchises do not tear at the soul like geographical areas - Jeff Stelling summed this up once with his sarcastic comment (on TNS winning in the Welsh premier league) - " they will be dancing in the streets of Total Network solutions tonight" Ditch the braves and the fire etc just say Glamorgan or Notts etc
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did I went on an A level Geography field trip to Orielton in Pembrokeshire with some A level students from the Crypt. They were all a bit "Tim, nice but dim".
Comprehensives worked well, when run properly. Since the mid 1980s there has been no political will for them to succeed (Conservative , nor Labour). Over the last decade, quite the opposite. Privatising them via academy groups, making them really poor allows the private sector to develop and flourish, but man, are there some poor private schools out there?
Particularly given the even more blatant attempt to abolish them in the Strauss review.
It seems likely, therefore,that its authors will have started with assumption based on the beliefs of their own education system - very probably that educations means the transmission of information and supposed knowledge as unquestionable truths. A view shared unfortunately by many in the present government, and indeed, by many posters here on PB.
If in fact we start by believing that education really has to do with thinking and questioning and communicating, as well as personal development in the broadest sense, then to base any appraisal only on exam results will behighly misleading. But this is what we have been reduced to.
Those pesky humans need training and leadership.
What could possibly go wrong?
There are various ways of getting rid of it. Easiest is select all, delete and type a full stop so it saves that.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students did A fair point.
In my school, although it unlikely, you could be in set 1 for Maths and for the sciences and set 7 for English. So you could still flourish in Maths and get extra attention for your English.
In my Grammar school you could be in set B and a Maths genius, but because your English was poor, you would be taught with the maths "dunces" and entered for CSE Maths.
Edit: Sorry again about the chaotic post.
Is it my fault or Vanilla? Over and out.
Double edit. I read @ydoethur 's post too late!
Our younger Ukrainian got Grade 6 and 4 and GCSE Maths and English. Excellent progress considering she spoke almost no English when she arrived with us. The older is concentrating on her professional cosplay career which seems the closest thing to money for nothing I have ever seen. I had to threaten to kill two yobbos in a Focus ST at a petrol station recently when they were eyeballing her Barbie rig of the day.
The announcement by the Home Office that the police should investigate all crimes is going to be a game-changer. It's an entirely new, and imaginative, concept in policing. Labour beware.
A stream for Maths and C for geography could happen.
The other thing that was important was that it was specifically made clear that getting children into the next group up was the mission of the B and C streams. Letting them rot wasn’t the plan.
Edit - I suppose that's slightly unfair. When I was on jury duty the other week we were trying somebody for nicking between 20 and 40 quid from a taxi driver.
But - that case made much more sense when, after we'd acquitted him, I found out he was a well-known drug pusher out on licence.
Comprehensive education for the most part failed. But there has been a political desire to make it fail.
The one key ingredient of both private and a grammar education is the instillation of confidence, certainly for the brighter pupils. Comps haven't done that for decades. I guess that is what the private school parent is paying for.
Biden will likely run again regardless. Independents and Democrats would support him against a convicted Trump and much of the Trump base would stay home if Trump was not the nominee
We spend aeons of time debating structures. But, as with much in this country, it ends up being what is cheapest, by default.*
*Although, ironically, a decent wage for all support staff so that they were permanent and skilled for the role would be cheaper than employing anyone at all with a DBS on supply on a day-by-day basis as happens now.
"Guide to GCSE results for England, summer 2023 - GOV.UK" https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guide-to-gcse-results-for-england-summer-2023
1) why don't they do this already, 13 years into governments with a strong focus on law and order, and
2) what are they going to do differently as a result of the announcement and, more importantly, where are the (huge amount of) extra resources going to come from?
Why, next you'll be suggesting OFSTED employ inspectors who are (a) experts in what they're inspecting and (b) won't take advantage of being inspectors to grope the children.
HY, you are the future. I am the past. I have no desire to go back to school, particularly grammar school. I hated it when I was there, so it won't affect me, one way or the other. Fill yer boots. But it isn't the path this old dog would follow.
And that's definitely within their power. All they have to do is commit mass hara kiri.
The NHS is tasked with ensuring that staff don't murder patients.
The CCRC is tasked with ensuring that people who may have been unjustly convicted are brought back to the Court of Appeal for consideration.
Building regulation and enforcement exists so that people don't burn to death in their own homes because of how things have been built.
Police investigate crimes.
It is quite hard to see which bits of this require further action apart from just getting on with it.
I had too much to drink at the races on Saturday, weigh too much, and had to spend all of Sunday in bed.
I think I can get up now.
Anyway, I'm off for my walk now. I shall be phoning the rozzers if I see any new graffiti and shall expect them to take action - perpetrators bound to be on some CCTV.
Gosh, you're in a mellow mood this morning. Must be the end of The You-Know-What.
Adding to the evidence that 96% of those on free school meals get a GCSE pass in grammars to just 86% of equivalent ability in non selective schools
"Grammar schools 'can
transform white working
class areas'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/
news/article-
3888312/amp/Grammars-
transform-white-working-
class-areas-Report-says-schools-enable-children-
achieve-middle-class-
backgrounds.html
Plus of course the clear evidence that areas with grammar schools are more likely to get pupils into Oxbridge and elite universities than non selective areas
"Towns that still have grammar schools top the table when it comes to getting pupils to Oxbridge" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175130/amp/Towns-grammar-schools-table-comes-getting-pupils-Oxbridge.html
Life is too short and the gym is too inviting.
Enjoy.
The view of a Michelin starred chef was that the pineapple question was culturally relational, but that in Naples you would be shot.
The view (the correct one) that all pizzas are cheese on toast, sometimes with minor enhancements and should never cost more than 50p which is more than they are worth was, as usual, not represented.
https://bosskitchen.com/burrito-with-chicken-and-pineapple/
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Willpower, willpower, kjh. You can do it.
Ramaswamy I'm worried about, I think he's dangerous.
Listen to what he's peddling, like on Ukraine, then as someone who wants to see Russia defeated and the west including Ukraine defended what he is saying is absolutely awful.
But he's saying it in a way that sounds legitimate. In a way that sounds intelligent, considered.
Thankfully I don't think he'll get anywhere near the nomination, but if he did I'd be worried he might actually win.
"Every theft must be investigated, home secretary tells police - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66636347
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
I had an issue 14 years ago (tail end of Labour government, before Tory "cuts") where my previous car was vandalised. I reported it to the Police and got the usual spiel about crime reference number. I pointed out where it was parked there were multiple businesses nearby with CCTV and they might have caught the offenders - I was told to investigate it myself and come back them if I got CCTV footage. Went to the businesses who all said same thing: can't share our CCTV footage as its against the law (which it is).
Yes investigating crimes may be difficult or time consuming, but that's what the Police are there to do. Getting them to outsource their jobs to victims is no solution. And given the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed by the same very few people, identifying and getting those few people off the streets would cut a lot of crimes out, thus remove the need for them to investigate those anymore.
If the Police even do catch the offender, then the court sees them prosecuted, that doesn't mean much if they get released via the revolving door because prisons are full.
https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/28-august-the-primus-a-liberianflagged-bulk-carrier-left
Russia freaked out at an American high-level drone watching, and sent fighters out to take a look, Moscow’s airports were closed again overnight, and an annual Russian military exercise has been cancelled due to lack of availability of troops and equipment.
As for actual resources, policy or action: tumbleweed
"Grammar schools 'can transform white working class areas'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3888312/amp/Grammars-transform-white-working-class-areas-Report-says-schools-enable-children-achieve-middle-class-backgrounds.html
Note too even the report you linked too says grammar school areas get higher overall GCSE pass rates than non selective areas
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/27/shoplifting-out-of-control-forget-police-stores-need-to-up-their-game
Ditto prisons. Look what has happened in the States with the three strikes notion.
(I see that the British Museum's director in charge of security is till in post.)
PS Mozzarella and San Marzano tomatoes belong on pizza. Pineapple does not. Nor anything else frankly.
It does not and never will exist. Hence we need more choice for parents, not least in the poorest areas where an excellent free school or church school offers real choice beyond a very average or below average comprehensive
We can build more prisons too
Tomorrow, just under 100% (I make it 97% but won't quibble) of the population of London discover that they are entirely unaffected by the ULEZ expansion.
But somehow they never publish articles saying that the girl in the provotive outfit can’t complain when she gets harassed in a bar, or that the homeowner who only has one lock on his front door deserves to be burgled.
The job of the police is to investigate offences, whether of theft or harrasment, and blaming the victim of crime is not a good idea.
And as the US policy is completely impossible here, anyone going "three strikes three strikes three strikes and out" is talking complete nonsense anyway. Or worse.
The UK problem is low-level theft, what Americans would call misdemeanors (without the ‘u’), which are either not being prosecuted at all, or are resulting in offenders receiving continual bail. An assumption that someone charged with an offence whilst on bail for another, should be remanded in custody, would deal with a lot of the problem, which comes from a relatively small number of offenders with house burglaries and car thefts.
Comically, a complaint is that their intake isn’t diverse enough. Diversity being measured as children on free school meals. So a school where white British parents are a minority (West London demographics) is not diverse. Quite apart from the whole point being to create schools good enough to ge I’m quite sure that the next generation of stores will meet with the Guardians approval. Not.
Amazon (and others) are trialling a store entry system, where you can’t physically enter the store without signing in, via your account.
The existing Amazon Fresh stores just have a turnstile you can jump over. These have double access doors, with sensors. Only one person can enter the vestibule at a time, verify and then you are in.
Once inside the system senses anything you take and adds it to your bill.
The usual suspects are already saying this is “hostile” to local people. As in, this makes shop lifting really hard.
This is a reaction to defacto legalisation of shop lifting. Which is a reaction to the incidents of racial profiling etc by police and issues with illegal actions by store security.
The above system removes all human interaction with would be shoplifters - so answers the problem about racism and violence on both sides.
The Guardian hand wringers will denounce this, and wonder where such as system came from.
Then there’s the tens of thousands more who will get a deluge of fines, because their number plates got cloned, and find the burden of proof pretty is much reversed in civil court. Obviously none of them will have anything to say to the press on the matter.
"Diversity" is simply a convenient excuse for this is costing us.
Some years ago, when I was living in Wiltshire, they locked up a chap. Overnight, burglary dropped by about 30% in the area. Apparently he and his friends would target commuter areas. Wait until people left for work. Then smash their way into a a dozen houses in a morning. Each working day….
Just like with healthcare or other issues, the idea we need one extreme or the American other extreme isn't true. We need a middle ground.
Repeat offenders need to be incarcerated for a reasonable amount of time, they don't need to be released via a revolving door, nor incarcerated for life.
Anecdote. At the World’s Fair in the sandpit last year, they had a few such experimental stores for drinks and snacks. You swiped your card on the way in, everything you picked up was logged by sensors and cameras, and you either agreed the bill and hit a button to be allowed out, or else waited for the assistant. One person at a time in the small shop.
Edit: anything to do with Amazon makes it infinitely worse.
https://dataconomy.com/2023/06/14/amazon-racist-doorbell-incident/
But someone working for the London Mayor really should be shot for the stupid lack of legal advice they have taken over signage as reported in the DM today (And no I don't read the DM usually but this came up on my MSN feed).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12452271/A-blow-ULEZ-expansion-plan-Scaffolder-wins-legal-ruling-signs-ultra-low-emission-zones-sister-scheme-not-lawful.html
How is it they have managed top put up all those LEZ signs and not realise they were not lawful? Does the Mayor's office not take legal advice?
(Note I have no idea of the timings on this. The signs could have been put up under Johnson rather than Khan.)