"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
The abolition of grammar schools was a hugely popular policy when it came in because alongside it meant the abolition of secondary moderns as well. That was why Maggie T when she was Ed Sec continued with the programme that had been started by Labour.
Those wanting grammar schools back tend to ignore that what they are also proposing is the reintroduction of sec mods and there are likely to be about three times as many of the former than the latter.
Why don't you look to see how 'secondary moderns' are performing in Bucks, Kent and other areas that still have grammar schools? I may be shooting myself in the foot as I haven't checked, but I would hazard a guess that they are not doing badly at all.
The single best policy of any party in this election is UKIP's vow to have a grammar school in every town.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
So it does matter if LAB lose seats to SNP then?
40 seats, 'tis but a flesh wound. Will only require another 20 marginals in E&W, piece of piss for Ed.
The biggest blight on education is bright kids being bullied for being swots - some sort of action needs to be taken to avoid that or to avoid them being dragged down to the lowest level. The least that should happen is streaming but even that isn't universal.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
In addition to grammar schools UKIP also advocate vocational education.
"VOCATIONAL EDUCATION As well as allowing existing schools to become grammar schools, we will allow other establishments to become vocational schools or colleges similar to those promoted in Germany and The Netherlands, so pupils develop practical skills.
Further, by linking vocational schools and colleges with industry, we will introduce an option for students to take an apprenticeship qualification instead of four non-core GCSEs. Students can then continue their apprenticeships past the age of 16, working with certified professionals qualified to grade their progress."
Vocational training might be brilliant, depending on how it is done, and it is a policy I could support. But any positive effect of vocational training would be blunted if the children involved are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate.
In engineering there is the concept that the quicker a problem is found, the cheaper it is to fix. The same is true for children: we need to detect children who are having problems with the basics as early as possible, and try to fix those problems immediately.
The presence, or not, of grammar schools in the schooling system is hardly the biggest problem facing the system, or by extension the country.
The problem with fixing those problem immediately is that the number one factor that domiantes all others when it comes to children's scholastic achievement is the contribution and attitude of the parents. School is a secondary factor in how well they learn.
I presume BigJohnowls will be along shortly to apologise for the his criticisms thrown at Hitchingbrooke hospital after the health inspectors report. The inspectors have now backed down and agreed the rating was incorrect and the hospital was run the same way as a hospital in the NHS nearby. Circle health have condemned the inspectors.
This morning-- The Times Page 2
Mail has it too:
Experts say it is further evidence that the inspection was flawed and a stitch-up by Labour Party activists and trade unionists who oppose privatisation.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
So it does matter if LAB lose seats to SNP then?
40 seats, 'tis but a flesh wound. Will only require another 20 marginals in E&W, piece of piss for Ed.
Will require another 20 seats to get back to status quo ante.
The tautological nuances of calling Secondary Moderns 'high schools' or community schools in areas where grammar schools exist is a deception.They are still the old secondary moderns by another name. Telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11. Primary schools are egalitarian havens excrpt in areas where cramming for tests is the norm and private tutors are much in demand.
Would you also shelter youngsters from exam results at GCSE, A level, degree level, PhD level ? Driving test ? Cub knot badge ?
When is it acceptable to say - actually your level of proficiency isn't the bestest in the world ever ?
Is age 11 the best age, do you think 7 or 8 would be better? Personally I think that 11 is too young.
What about losing at monopoly - is that too harsh an experience for the little darlings ?
Life is harsh - get the blighters toughened up from an early age.
Monopoly is a boring drudge of a game, in which the players are forced to go through the motions for ages to confirm a victory once it has long become inevitable.
Far better to play superior modern board games such as Ticket to Ride or Carcassonne.
The tautological nuances of calling Secondary Moderns 'high schools' or community schools in areas where grammar schools exist is a deception.They are still the old secondary moderns by another name. Telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11. Primary schools are egalitarian havens excrpt in areas where cramming for tests is the norm and private tutors are much in demand.
Would you also shelter youngsters from exam results at GCSE, A level, degree level, PhD level ? Driving test ? Cub knot badge ?
When is it acceptable to say - actually your level of proficiency isn't the bestest in the world ever ?
Is age 11 the best age, do you think 7 or 8 would be better? Personally I think that 11 is too young.
In Bucks they can try again at 12+ and I think also at 13
I presume BigJohnowls will be along shortly to apologise for the his criticisms thrown at Hitchingbrooke hospital after the health inspectors report. The inspectors have now backed down and agreed the rating was incorrect and the hospital was run the same way as a hospital in the NHS nearby. Circle health have condemned the inspectors.
This morning-- The Times Page 2
Mail has it too:
Experts say it is further evidence that the inspection was flawed and a stitch-up by Labour Party activists and trade unionists who oppose privatisation.
Very surprised there's no thread header leading on the Tories regaining the lead with You Gov.
It's presumably a slightly odd rounding effect - the Tory lead is 1 person out of 1799, weighted by what appear to be virtually identical certainty to vote figures.
But I'd agree that despite TNS and ICM moving the other way, you can make a case that the position has inched from a tie to Con+1. Whether that's worth a thread is debtable.
Politics must be the most frustrating career choice. In much of life elsewhere you decide what you want and get after it. CEOs get the freedom to make decisions and act upon them. But politicans are forever hamstrung by their utter lack of real power - however much we may pretend that they have some. Ed simply can't turn the world into his fantasy bankruptopia. Nigel can't simply close the doors. Dave can't blow off his backbenchers. The Greens will not be allowed to return us to the stone age. It's a life of fighting hard to achieve some, but only some, of what you believe in - and even then only for a while. And if you go at it too hard the next lot will unwind your achievements.
I suppose that, like many people, the prospect of having real power to effect the change I believe in is attractive. But politicians delude themselves if they think they'll get real lasting power. And so all political careers end in failure. Which leaves me wondering what sort of personality type is attracted to politics these days. It's not just showbiz for uglies - it's becoming showbiz for weirdos. Maybe Blair was smart to realise that being PM is perhaps only an entry ticket to things more valuable and rewarding.
Interesting post - I remember the deputy editor of the Economist standing down after one term for just that reason. I've switched back and forth from leadership jobs in the private sector to a backbench role and I recognise the frustrations. It remains rewarding for social democrats (=cautious change) who are happy to be part of a movement rather than insistent on leading the charge themselves. Why a dynamic Tory individualist would want to do it escapes me.
It escapes you does it. 'you know wot', it escapes you because you smear all tories as 'individualists'. We know there is an election on, there is no need to ram it down our throats with your cheap nasty poropaganda.
That's a very grouchy response to what wasn't intended to be a provocative post. Being an individualist isn't a hideous crime.
I'm not presently intending to put up any more posts before the election, though I might do so if I find that I have something specific to say about some new development.
A very insightful series of articles @antifrank , on what is not only the closest election in living memory but also the most complex in terms of interaction between the parties and therefor the most difficult to call.
It will be interesting to come back to this after the election, as I am sure you intend to do!
I presume BigJohnowls will be along shortly to apologise for the his criticisms thrown at Hitchingbrooke hospital after the health inspectors report. The inspectors have now backed down and agreed the rating was incorrect and the hospital was run the same way as a hospital in the NHS nearby. Circle health have condemned the inspectors.
This morning-- The Times Page 2
Mail has it too:
Experts say it is further evidence that the inspection was flawed and a stitch-up by Labour Party activists and trade unionists who oppose privatisation.
Note the sheer desperation of the Right to prop up its failing ideology.
Ideology that was begun by Labour.
Labour are an absolute disgrace, lying bastards to a man.
Labour have rightly abandoned sheepishly following Tory privatisation ideology. Blairism is junked.
Only people left propping it up are the Tories themselves.
Typical rightwing accommodation of mediocrity and failure: Oh look! Hospital being run crap is not quite as crap as first thought! Success!
I thought ed said he would not allow any private company to earn more than 5% profit, not stop it all together.
I'll make a prediction...If Labour win, in 2020, I bet this policy isn't in place....because if he goes through it, all that extra capacity provided by private providers wont be there and as Blair found you then start to run into big problems (hence why he ended up openly advocating the expansion of use of outside providers).
My secondary school didn't have a sixth form so all they cared about was getting as many kids as possible to get 5 A-Cs. What we did when we left school didn't really bother them.
As such they were more concerned with my weakness (English) than my strength (maths). Furthermore, at no point was I ever encouraged to follow my interest (politics) seriously.
That was my daughters' experience of state primary. The top third of the class was ignored because they didn't need help and the bottom third was ignored because they were beyond it. What mattered was getting the middle third just over the line.
So they were both utterly bored and utterly miserable.
I presume BigJohnowls will be along shortly to apologise for the his criticisms thrown at Hitchingbrooke hospital after the health inspectors report. The inspectors have now backed down and agreed the rating was incorrect and the hospital was run the same way as a hospital in the NHS nearby. Circle health have condemned the inspectors.
This morning-- The Times Page 2
Mail has it too:
Experts say it is further evidence that the inspection was flawed and a stitch-up by Labour Party activists and trade unionists who oppose privatisation.
Eve of Poll SUPER ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
14 days 14 hours 14 minutes 14 seconds
Are we going to get a couple of mini ARSEs between now and then?
No.
I regret to say that you'll simply have to accept just the usual magnificent spectacle of an ARSE revelation on Tuesday and Saturday until the final and completely splendiferous eve of poll SUPER ARSE at 10:00pm on the 6th May
I know .... I know, you'll have intense ARSE withdrawal symptoms after the election but all good things must pass.
I am very torn on grammar schools. I went to the last one in inner London and it gave me a superb education, with the assumption all the way through that I would go to university. As someone from a working class home I wonder if it would have been the same had I gone to a comprehensive. But then I think of my middle son, who was born in late August and always struggled at school - especially in his early teens. He would certainly not have got into a grammar school, would have ended up in a secondary modern and probably would have missed out on his place at Nottingham University that was secured on the back of a very late flowering at sixth form college.
It strikes me that there should be a level of selection at different age groups, but also a high degree of mobility between groups. And that, surely, means streaming within schools where children of all abilities are taught.
My brother was transferred at age 12 in the late 60s and at the grammar school I taught at we took many in the late 90s. however, the overall patterns was much too static and that was a mistake as was the often poor funding of sec mods. One of the biggest failings was that the technical schools failed to catch on - a huge pity and a mistake. Overall though there was more social mobility than there is now, when money is the big divider rather than innate ability. A more fluid system with a range of different type of secondaries could work well, but everything in education is hopelessly bogged down in politics and statism.
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
Those wanting grammar schools back tend to ignore that what they are also proposing is the reintroduction of sec mods and there are likely to be about three times as many of the former than the latter.
Those wanting grammar schools back (and also those who are fiercely against grammar schools) are mostly just wanting to validate their own education, IMO.
Grammar schools made a certain amount of sense in the past. They make no sense whatsoever in 2015. We can now tailor education to each child, monitoring individual progress, deficiencies, strengths etc etc. Even the idea of a class of 30 students of a similar ability, sitting in front of a teacher, absorbing wisdom (while actually looking out of the window, picking their nose) is fast becoming, erm, old skool.
The basic problem with education policy, is that everyone can (with some justification) call themselves an expert.
I thought Poodles were the smartest hence appearing in circuses. Collies are very smart either way. Ditto GSDs. My white one could finish a puzzle forecast to take 20mins in 5.
As any fule kno, the Border Collie is the most intelligent breed of dog. Unfortunately they are not always properly trained to drive ...
I've owned two border collies, very driven dogs, strong work ethic.
I'm on my second Dogue De Bordeaux, useless great lumps that slobber everywhere and make a total mess of the house. But they are the best dogs I have ever owned, totally devoted to the whole expanded family, and are described as an intruders worst nightmare.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
The problem with fixing those problem immediately is that the number one factor that domiantes all others when it comes to children's scholastic achievement is the contribution and attitude of the parents. School is a secondary factor in how well they learn.
Absolutely, which is why successive governments have proved so incapable of fixing them. Schools can only be there (at least for these most fundamental of skills) to try to pick up the pieces from poor parenting. But that does not mean they should not try, and that requires money, effort, and a belief that these problematic children are worth helping.
As I've said passim, more than one ex-miner I knew were told at a young age that they would only be good for working in manual labour at the mine. After that, the schools essentially forgot about them. Why bother educating someone who is going to be a manual labourer.
Eve of Poll SUPER ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
14 days 14 hours 14 minutes 14 seconds
Are we going to get a couple of mini ARSEs between now and then?
No.
I regret to say that you'll simply have to accept just the usual magnificent spectacle of an ARSE revelation on Tuesday and Saturday until the final and completely splendiferous eve of poll SUPER ARSE at 10:00pm on the 6th May
I know .... I know, you'll have intense ARSE withdrawal symptoms after the election but all good things must pass.
When can we exepct the first EURO-ARSE if an EU referendum comes into view after the GE?
I'm not presently intending to put up any more posts before the election, though I might do so if I find that I have something specific to say about some new development.
A very insightful series of articles @antifrank , on what is not only the closest election in living memory but also the most complex in terms of interaction between the parties and therefor the most difficult to call.
It will be interesting to come back to this after the election, as I am sure you intend to do!
That's very kind.
I only post if I've got something to say. In the fog of war, I don't think I'm going to have much to say that deserves a separate post. If I am moved by the spirit in the next couple of weeks though, I will not regard this as a vow of silence.
Following the election I expect I'll have some ideas about what the actual results mean for government formation if there's the hung Parliament that I expect. And on when the next election will be likely to take place.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
This is such utter crap. Only a fool would be so crass as to brand someone a failure for life (!!) on the result of 1 test at a young age.
I went to a state grammar school and friends to the "High School" (not been called secondary moderns for some decades). One of those friends joined the grammar school in the 6th form and was one of only 2 people in the school to go to Oxford. Luckily he didn't listen to idiotic lefties telling him he was a failure or blighted! Another friend who had failed at 11 was transferred across at 14 as he was doing well and now runs his own very successful business.
Another advantage of the system was that I along with others was no longer bullied for being a swot as i had been at primary school.
A simple return to the old system would not work thanks to middle class parents paying for tutors, but some system where 11 year olds could be sent the best schools for them at that age would work.
So two of your mates were transferred. Two. That's not a huge number. How many could have moved across, but didn't?
I can;t answer that but I agree it is likely to have been more.
I would support such a system in principle, although if it;s too many there are obvious potential issues with capacity. Sending people the other way would be tricky too.
I suspect in practice getting teachers to support a return to the 11+ would be almost impossible. The biggest problem is surely attitude - parents who inexplicably don't seem to care much about their own children, and kids who can't be arsed to learn. I am very far from being in a position to prescribe an answer I freely admit.
Taken together, what that means is that, on average, poor children do markedly worse in Kent than in the rest of the country. Kent is less socially mobile than the rest of England – and much less mobile than London.
I presume BigJohnowls will be along shortly to apologise for the his criticisms thrown at Hitchingbrooke hospital after the health inspectors report. The inspectors have now backed down and agreed the rating was incorrect and the hospital was run the same way as a hospital in the NHS nearby. Circle health have condemned the inspectors.
This morning-- The Times Page 2
Mail has it too:
Experts say it is further evidence that the inspection was flawed and a stitch-up by Labour Party activists and trade unionists who oppose privatisation.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
In addition to grammar schools UKIP also advocate vocational education.
"VOCATIONAL EDUCATION As well as allowing existing schools to become grammar schools, we will allow other establishments to become vocational schools or colleges similar to those promoted in Germany and The Netherlands, so pupils develop practical skills.
Vocational training might be brilliant, depending on how it is done, and it is a policy I could support. But any positive effect of vocational training would be blunted if the children involved are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate.
In engineering there is the concept that the quicker a problem is found, the cheaper it is to fix. The same is true for children: we need to detect children who are having problems with the basics as early as possible, and try to fix those problems immediately.
The presence, or not, of grammar schools in the schooling system is hardly the biggest problem facing the system, or by extension the country.
The problem with fixing those problem immediately is that the number one factor that domiantes all others when it comes to children's scholastic achievement is the contribution and attitude of the parents. School is a secondary factor in how well they learn.
I watched Skint on Channel 4 aftet Ballot Monkeys last night (not bad comedy for a dull campaign).
It was from Merthyr. Total poverty of aspiration. Staying out of jail and off drugs the highest ambition going. Not a bad start but not a very high ceiling either. School should be the way out, but it was never going to be. Desperately sad.
The tautological nuances of calling Secondary Moderns 'high schools' or community schools in areas where grammar schools exist is a deception.They are still the old secondary moderns by another name. Telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11. Primary schools are egalitarian havens excrpt in areas where cramming for tests is the norm and private tutors are much in demand.
By egalitarian you presumably mean levelled down.
What is wrong with wanting children to do well in tests?
More difficult a question, why do i bother arguing with you :-(
The biggest blight on education is bright kids being bullied for being swots - some sort of action needs to be taken to avoid that or to avoid them being dragged down to the lowest level. The least that should happen is streaming but even that isn't universal.
On topic: I think Tim Montgomorie, in pursuit of a career as a media pundit, has twigged that the BBC love nothing more than a dissenting tory. They can use then for interviews and panels to demonstrate balance whilst maintaining wholly negative comment on the tories on whatever programme it is. Think Michael Portillo/Ken Clarke/Nadine Dorries.
He's basically the Dan Hodges of the right and sees this election as his big moment for a media land grab, at the expense of the party he purports to support
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
Those wanting grammar schools back tend to ignore that what they are also proposing is the reintroduction of sec mods and there are likely to be about three times as many of the former than the latter.
Those wanting grammar schools back (and also those who are fiercely against grammar schools) are mostly just wanting to validate their own education, IMO.
Grammar schools made a certain amount of sense in the past. They make no sense whatsoever in 2015. We can now tailor education to each child, monitoring individual progress, deficiencies, strengths etc etc. Even the idea of a class of 30 students of a similar ability, sitting in front of a teacher, absorbing wisdom (while actually looking out of the window, picking their nose) is fast becoming, erm, old skool.
The basic problem with education policy, is that everyone can (with some justification) call themselves an expert.
I went to a comprehensive and it was sh1t. I'd have loved to have gone to a grammar school and had the opportunities afforded by it.
I was "saved" by the fact that my comprehensive had managed to retain its sixth form, but take up was so low that class sizes were tiny. 6 in my further maths class, 7 in physics, and 8 in chemistry. And I was lucky enough to be taught maths by a Cambridge Engineering PhD (rare as rocking horse p00 in the state sector).
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
The abolition of grammar schools was a hugely popular policy when it came in because alongside it meant the abolition of secondary moderns as well. That was why Maggie T when she was Ed Sec continued with the programme that had been started by Labour.
Those wanting grammar schools back tend to ignore that what they are also proposing is the reintroduction of sec mods and there are likely to be about three times as many of the former than the latter.
The reintroduction of grammar schools doesn't have to mean a return to poor secondary moderns.
State secondary education funding should slanted in favour of the non grammar schools - essentially an extension of the excellent pupil premium policy. Grammars should also transfer pupils at 13 and at six form to cater for late developers.
I hear it (Ed is Crap) whenever he is mentioned on TV. Having an apolitical wife it is odd to hear her exclamations of despair and scorn for either one of two politicians when they are shown. Ed or Nigel get her animated in a way that is negative to them, and now Nicola is also getting her opprobrium.
As they say, you never know what goes on behind closed doors, but in her 60th year she has commented on politics voluntarily for the first time, and done so with venom and frequency. I doubt she is typical, I doubt pollsters will pick this up.
Hi Philip
You're into flowers & gardens right, IIRC? I have a spare ticket for the launch of the Garden Bridge patron's evening and thought it might be your sort of thing?
Hi Charles
I would be interested, an interesting project, when is it?
12 May, 7pm in London (close to Liverpool St). Be warned...they may ask you for money...!
My secondary school didn't have a sixth form so all they cared about was getting as many kids as possible to get 5 A-Cs. What we did when we left school didn't really bother them.
As such they were more concerned with my weakness (English) than my strength (maths). Furthermore, at no point was I ever encouraged to follow my interest (politics) seriously.
That was my daughters' experience of state primary. The top third of the class was ignored because they didn't need help and the bottom third was ignored because they were beyond it. What mattered was getting the middle third just over the line.
So they were both utterly bored and utterly miserable.
Absolutely right. Which is why Gove's reforms, abandoning the 5 A-C target, has been such a great step forward. Every pupil of every ability deserves a system where the best is got out of them whatever that may be.
As a rule of thumb anything which upsets the teaching unions is a good idea ;-)
We can now tailor education to each child, monitoring individual progress, deficiencies, strengths etc etc. Even the idea of a class of 30 students of a similar ability, sitting in front of a teacher, absorbing wisdom (while actually looking out of the window, picking their nose) is fast becoming, erm, old skool.
Actually this isn't true....e.g. The people behind KIPS showed that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who scored the same on tests at the end of the school year as those from middle class backgrounds, when retested after the summer break performed consistently worse.
So unless your one size fits all model of schooling is going to alter the school days and years based upon various factors of the kids i.e. some kids being made to stay late / have less holidays, it wont work.
And we know that no school will do that. The only way to achieve this is different schools, with different approaches.
School of One is an approach that aims to provide "personalized" learning, but again it is hard to make it work as a one size fits for all schools.
The tautological nuances of calling Secondary Moderns 'high schools' or community schools in areas where grammar schools exist is a deception.They are still the old secondary moderns by another name. Telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11. Primary schools are egalitarian havens excrpt in areas where cramming for tests is the norm and private tutors are much in demand.
Would you also shelter youngsters from exam results at GCSE, A level, degree level, PhD level ? Driving test ? Cub knot badge ?
When is it acceptable to say - actually your level of proficiency isn't the bestest in the world ever ?
Is age 11 the best age, do you think 7 or 8 would be better? Personally I think that 11 is too young.
What about losing at monopoly - is that too harsh an experience for the little darlings ?
Life is harsh - get the blighters toughened up from an early age.
Monopoly is a boring drudge of a game, in which the players are forced to go through the motions for ages to confirm a victory once it has long become inevitable.
Far better to play superior modern board games such as Ticket to Ride or Carcassonne.
Eve of Poll SUPER ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
14 days 14 hours 14 minutes 14 seconds
Are we going to get a couple of mini ARSEs between now and then?
No.
I regret to say that you'll simply have to accept just the usual magnificent spectacle of an ARSE revelation on Tuesday and Saturday until the final and completely splendiferous eve of poll SUPER ARSE at 10:00pm on the 6th May
I know .... I know, you'll have intense ARSE withdrawal symptoms after the election but all good things must pass.
When can we exepct the first EURO-ARSE if an EU referendum comes into view after the GE?
I daren't say lest poor @MikeK spontaneously combusts.
My secondary school didn't have a sixth form so all they cared about was getting as many kids as possible to get 5 A-Cs. What we did when we left school didn't really bother them.
As such they were more concerned with my weakness (English) than my strength (maths). Furthermore, at no point was I ever encouraged to follow my interest (politics) seriously.
That was my daughters' experience of state primary. The top third of the class was ignored because they didn't need help and the bottom third was ignored because they were beyond it. What mattered was getting the middle third just over the line.
So they were both utterly bored and utterly miserable.
Between 13 and 18 I went to a private school (having been at state schools from 10 to 13). For A-levels, the school had a rather interesting idea: you did not necessarily need to turn up to lessons. If they felt you were good enough, you could work by yourself in your study, library, or in the grounds. If you needed help, the teachers were available.
An Indian friend of mine attended (from memory) two classes in his final year, and got one of the best A-level results in the country. He was capable of teaching himself using the resources the school had. But, lovely as he was, he was also an aberration. ;-)
Apols if posted before - but great article from Fraser Nelson:
Has no one bothered to explain the basic rules of politics to Nicola Sturgeon? Fraser Nelson is baffled by the SNP leader's bizarre decision to mix with members of the public
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a smallhad minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
This is such utter crap. Only a fool would be so crass as to brand someone a failure for life (!!) on the result of 1 test at a young age.
I went to a state grammar school and friends to the "High School" (not been called secondary moderns for some decades). One of those friends joined the grammar school in the 6th form and was one of only 2 people in the school to go to Oxford. Luckily he didn't listen to idiotic lefties telling him he was a failure or blighted! Another friend who had failed at 11 was transferred across at 14 as he was doing well and now runs his own very successful business.
Another advantage of the system was that I along with others was no longer bullied for being a swot as i had been at primary school.
A simple return to the old system would not work thanks to middle class parents paying for tutors, but some system where 11 year olds could be sent the best schools for them at that age would work.
So two of your mates were transferred. Two. That's not a huge number. How many could have moved across, but didn't?
I can;t answer that but I agree it is likely to have been more.
I would support such a system in principle, although if it;s too many there are obvious potential issues with capacity. Sending people the other way would be tricky too.
I suspect in practice getting teachers to support a return to the 11+ would be almost impossible. The biggest problem is surely attitude - parents who inexplicably don't seem to care much about their own children, and kids who can't be arsed to learn. I am very far from being in a position to prescribe an answer I freely admit.
He's basically the Dan Hodges of the right and sees this election as his big moment for a media land grab, at the expense of the party he purports to support
Exactly right - having described Cameron as a 'cuckoo in the nest' whom he couldn't wait to see the back of this sort of comment shouldn't surprise anybody - just like Dan H the idea is to persistently be negative about the party you claim to support and thus pretend to some sort of objectivity which media outlets love.
Why would you want to return to Secondary Moderns because that is what a return to Grammar Schools means? Children who fail the entrance exam are blighted for the rest of their lives, such a small minded and mean spirited system. Much better to have one good secondary school in each area.
That is my major concern with this perverse concentration on grammar schools: education needs to be structured so that it works for all children, not just the brightest. MikeK's post below shows an interest only in the children who - I suspect like him - were bright enough to get into a grammar school.
Whilst the bright kids need help to reach their potential, I'm much more interested in helping those kids who are at the bottom. Morally and fiscally the country needs them to improve.
It is the children at the bottom who most need our help, and screaming 'grammar schools' will do nothing for them.
In addition to grammar schools UKIP also advocate vocational education.
"VOCATIONAL EDUCATION As well as allowing existing schools to become grammar schools, we will allow other establishments to become vocational schools or colleges similar to those promoted in Germany and The Netherlands, so pupils develop practical skills.
Vocational training might be brilliant, depending on how it is done, and it is a policy I could support. But any positive effect of vocational training would be blunted if the children involved are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate.
In engineering there is the concept that the quicker a problem is found, the cheaper it is to fix. The same is true for children: we need to detect children who are having problems with the basics as early as possible, and try to fix those problems immediately.
The presence, or not, of grammar schools in the schooling system is hardly the biggest problem facing the system, or by extension the country.
The problem with fixing those problem immediately is that the number one factor that domiantes all others when it comes to children's scholastic achievement is the contribution and attitude of the parents. School is a secondary factor in how well they learn.
I watched Skint on Channel 4 aftet Ballot Monkeys last night (not bad comedy for a dull campaign).
It was from Merthyr. Total poverty of aspiration. Staying out of jail and off drugs the highest ambition going. Not a bad start but not a very high ceiling either. School should be the way out, but it was never going to be. Desperately sad.
A lot of my friends learned good lifelong skills in a secondary modern,To give an example.one of my friends learned touch typing and it has enabled her to work ,change jobs easily and using a PC is nothing to her,whereas I am still using two fingers.
I only wish my children ,non academic,had been able to learn those practical skills instead of floundering in a one size fits all comprehensive. Getting expelled from school at age 15 was the best thing to happen to my son.He got a job and hasn't looked back.
I presume BigJohnowls will be along shortly to apologise for the his criticisms thrown at Hitchingbrooke hospital after the health inspectors report. The inspectors have now backed down and agreed the rating was incorrect and the hospital was run the same way as a hospital in the NHS nearby. Circle health have condemned the inspectors.
This morning-- The Times Page 2
Mail has it too:
Experts say it is further evidence that the inspection was flawed and a stitch-up by Labour Party activists and trade unionists who oppose privatisation.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
I'm trying to work out which is the more important edge case though, Lib-Dem/Con battles or Labour/SNP.
That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
At my daughters' primary school, there was absolutely no attention paid to the 11+ whatsoever. Literally zero. No prep, no support, no nothing. If you were a poor kid aspiring to get into QE Boys or Henrietta Barnet - forget it. Not gonna happen. The two local grammars have kids commuting in from places like Uxbridge. You are up against every swotty kid in a 35-mile radius, and if their parents can afford private tuition or better tuition than yours can, well, tough luck. Expect no help or support from the school.
I presume the same applies at university entrance. Several of the smart kids I knew at university had been told by their state school teachers there was no point even applying to Oxbridge because they wouldn't get in. I could scream thinking about all the smart kids who believed that, knowing no better. As Henry Ford said, if one person thinks "I can do that" and another thinks "I can't do that", they are probably both right.
Those wanting grammar schools back tend to ignore that what they are also proposing is the reintroduction of sec mods and there are likely to be about three times as many of the former than the latter.
Comprehensives are secondary moderns, Mike. If you have a town that has a grammar and a secondary modern, abolishing the grammar school leaves you with just the secondary moderns.
Here's a thought experiment. You have an exam in which some kids get a grade A and others get grades B to E. This is unfair, so you abolish the A grade. Now nobody can get one. Everybody gets grade B to E.
Does this raise standards? How would you know?
Here's another fun thought experiment. You have two groups of exam candidates, one comprising pre-schoolers, the other comprising Russell Group astrophysics graduates. You set each group an identical test, which is to say their own name. You note the groups' scores. You then set a new test which is slightly harder, then another, and so on, until the final test requires a solution to Hilbert's 12th Problem.
You plot the difference in their scores through this process. In the first test there is no difference, because they all pass. In the last there is no difference because they all fail. In between you have a graph that looks probably like an upside down letter U.
When exam outcomes between these two groups of different test-passing ability converge, what does that tell you about the difficulty of the exam?
Over the last few days, the Labour most seats price has gone from 2.50 to 3.35 while the Ed to be next PM price has gone in the opposite direction from around 2.02 to 1.73
I think this demonstrates that the Labour/SNP meme is not just scaremongering by a fairly probable reality
Apols if posted before - but great article from Fraser Nelson:
Has no one bothered to explain the basic rules of politics to Nicola Sturgeon? Fraser Nelson is baffled by the SNP leader's bizarre decision to mix with members of the public
The odd thing about that article is that he makes no mention of UKIP. Public meetings, 1970s style political activism, that he sees in the SNP's campaign are also the centre of UKIP's campaign.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
I'm trying to work out which is the more important edge case though, Lib-Dem/Con battles or Labour/SNP.
Labour might need the Lib Dems, especially if Labour do well but not well enough. It all depends on the numbers and we can't assume too much with two weeks to go.
I presume BigJohnowls will be along shortly to apologise for the his criticisms thrown at Hitchingbrooke hospital after the health inspectors report. The inspectors have now backed down and agreed the rating was incorrect and the hospital was run the same way as a hospital in the NHS nearby. Circle health have condemned the inspectors.
This morning-- The Times Page 2
Mail has it too:
Experts say it is further evidence that the inspection was flawed and a stitch-up by Labour Party activists and trade unionists who oppose privatisation.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
I'm trying to work out which is the more important edge case though, Lib-Dem/Con battles or Labour/SNP.
As I said a few days ago, an SNP surge resulting in more SNP gains from the LibDems is good for Labour, as it moves seats from the centre-right bloc to the lefty-left bloc. The SNP taking Labour seats is a price worth paying to achieve this.
We can now tailor education to each child, monitoring individual progress, deficiencies, strengths etc etc. Even the idea of a class of 30 students of a similar ability, sitting in front of a teacher, absorbing wisdom (while actually looking out of the window, picking their nose) is fast becoming, erm, old skool.
School of One is an approach that aims to provide "personalized" learning, but again it is hard to make it work as a one size fits for all schools.
Sure, it's hard to make work - but it was impossible in the past, it's hard now, it'll be easier in the future, and is inevitable within a few years.
Technology is changing *everything* in education - we've barely even begun to appreciate the revolution that is taking place.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
Have they said that, or some vague words about the largest party having the right to try first ?
One of the advantages of grammar schools is that they taught kids like me from rough backgrounds how to handle yourself in polite company. We need to be honest about the fact people get their foot on the ladder less from academic skills and more about how you come across when meeting people and at interviews. Grammar schools also put working class kids in touch with people with higher aspirations, and it makes your own horizons expand. The busybods that form educational policy will never understand this, because it's not something that will show up in statistics.
Touch typing was something I taught myself using the ancient Mavis Deacon software during my lunchtime. I didn't let on I could since it was still female = typist land.
A lot of my friends learned good lifelong skills in a secondary modern,To give an example.one of my friends learned touch typing and it has enabled her to work ,change jobs easily and using a PC is nothing to her,whereas I am still using two fingers.
I only wish my children ,non academic,had been able to learn those practical skills instead of floundering in a one size fits all comprehensive. Getting expelled from school at age 15 was the best thing to happen to my son.He got a job and hasn't looked back.
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him, who's name escapes me. 'Not looking good' is a very selective quote, and of course would depend on the context - not looking good for 5 years of DC? Not looking good for winning? A majority? For the major donor to continue his donating? But don't let that get in the way of a good old fashioned PB tabloid header, complete with supporting evidence from a 'senior' Tory. All the thread needs is Palmer to show up and tell us how this chimes with what he is hearing on the doorstep in Broxtowe - Daves heart isn't in it it Nick, everyone on the street says so.
The Tories don't deserve to win because they have forgotten how to be Tories, and are not prepared to legislate to enforce their trickle down recovery, letting the rich pocket the recovery instead. UKIP don't deserve to win because they don't have a clue what to do about anything The Liberal Democrats don't deserve to win because they have gone from idealism to political accoutrement for the highest bidder, and the nice Liberals have been perverted by SDP crap. Labour don't deserve to win because they haven't been true to their founding principles since the Dark Lord Mandelson got into Kinnocks head and are now just traitorous metropolitan filth The greens don't deserve to win because I am voting for them The SNP don't deserve to win because they can't win Ditto PC, SF, DUP, UUP and Alliance and SDLP
There is no attractive result, no practical result and no point given Grexit and the coming meltdown. Worst election ever. Most fun as well.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
I'm trying to work out which is the more important edge case though, Lib-Dem/Con battles or Labour/SNP.
Labour might need the Lib Dems, especially if Labour do well but not well enough. It all depends on the numbers and we can't assume too much with two weeks to go.
If Labour need the Lib Dems, then that means that the Tories can also get over the line with Lib Dem support. If that is the case, I would expect the Cam & Clegg double act to continue. Perhaps a different story if things go differently in Hallam, however.
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him, who's name escapes me. 'Not looking good' is a very selective quote, and of course would depend on the context - not looking good for 5 years of DC? Not looking good for winning? A majority? For the major donor to continue his donating? But don't let that get in the way of a good old fashioned PB tabloid header, complete with supporting evidence from a 'senior' Tory. All the thread needs is Palmer to show up and tell us how this chimes with what he is hearing on the doorstep in Broxtowe - Daves heart isn't in it it Nick, everyone on the street says so.
The Tories don't deserve to win because they have forgotten how to be Tories, and are not prepared to legislate to enforce their trickle down recovery, letting the rich pocket the recovery instead. UKIP don't deserve to win because they don't have a clue what to do about anything The Liberal Democrats don't deserve to win because they have gone from idealism to political accoutrement for the highest bidder, and the nice Liberals have been perverted by SDP crap. Labour don't deserve to win because they haven't been true to their founding principles since the Dark Lord Mandelson got into Kinnocks head and are now just traitorous metropolitan filth The greens don't deserve to win because I am voting for them The SNP don't deserve to win because they can't win Ditto PC, SF, DUP, UUP and Alliance and SDLP
There is no attractive result, no practical result and no point given Grexit and the coming meltdown. Worst election ever. Most fun as well.
Andrew Neil has been an arse ever since that enormously gorgeous woman stopped doing DP with him, who's name escapes me. 'Not looking good' is a very selective quote, and of course would depend on the context - not looking good for 5 years of DC? Not looking good for winning? A majority? For the major donor to continue his donating? But don't let that get in the way of a good old fashioned PB tabloid header, complete with supporting evidence from a 'senior' Tory. All the thread needs is Palmer to show up and tell us how this chimes with what he is hearing on the doorstep in Broxtowe - Daves heart isn't in it it Nick, everyone on the street says so.
The Tories don't deserve to win because they have forgotten how to be Tories, and are not prepared to legislate to enforce their trickle down recovery, letting the rich pocket the recovery instead. UKIP don't deserve to win because they don't have a clue what to do about anything The Liberal Democrats don't deserve to win because they have gone from idealism to political accoutrement for the highest bidder, and the nice Liberals have been perverted by SDP crap. Labour don't deserve to win because they haven't been true to their founding principles since the Dark Lord Mandelson got into Kinnocks head and are now just traitorous metropolitan filth The greens don't deserve to win because I am voting for them The SNP don't deserve to win because they can't win Ditto PC, SF, DUP, UUP and Alliance and SDLP
There is no attractive result, no practical result and no point given Grexit and the coming meltdown. Worst election ever. Most fun as well.
Anita Anand
No, the even cuter one before her
Edit - Jenny Scott. I loved her. Wonderful human being :-D
Spot on. My aspiration turned my very average prospect husband into a multi million chap. I got it from my parents. Expectations are founded at home. School can help
One of the advantages of grammar schools is that they taught kids like me from rough backgrounds how to handle yourself in polite company. We need to be honest about the fact people get their foot on the ladder less from academic skills and more about how you come across when meeting people and at interviews. Grammar schools also put working class kids in touch with people with higheraspirations, and it makes your own horizons expand. The busybods that form educational policy will never understand this, because it's not something that will show up in statistics.
One of the advantages of grammar schools is that they taught kids like me from rough backgrounds how to handle yourself in polite company. We need to be honest about the fact people get their foot on the ladder less from academic skills and more about how you come across when meeting people and at interviews. Grammar schools also put working class kids in touch with people with higher aspirations, and it makes your own horizons expand. The busybods that form educational policy will never understand this, because it's not something that will show up in statistics.
Grammars are great for the kids from poor families who get into them. And as Kent shows, Grammars take on less than average kids from free school meal families.
So, as all the analysis shows, for the rest the existence of Grammars are a disaster.
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
You wouldn't be wishing to cast doubt on the maxim
Spot on. My aspiration turned my very average prospect husband into a multi million chap. I got it from my parents. Expectations are founded at home. School can help
One of the advantages of grammar schools is that they taught kids like me from rough backgrounds how to handle yourself in polite company. We need to be honest about the fact people get their foot on the ladder less from academic skills and more about how you come across when meeting people and at interviews. Grammar schools also put working class kids in touch with people with higheraspirations, and it makes your own horizons expand. The busybods that form educational policy will never understand this, because it's not something that will show up in statistics.
Hen peck for prosperity?! I like it as a slogan for today's Tory lady ;-)
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
How about Con 280 Lab 270 Lib Dems 35 SNP 40 though ?
Spot on. My aspiration turned my very average prospect husband into a multi million chap. I got it from my parents. Expectations are founded at home. School can help
One of the advantages of grammar schools is that they taught kids like me from rough backgrounds how to handle yourself in polite company. We need to be honest about the fact people get their foot on the ladder less from academic skills and more about how you come across when meeting people and at interviews. Grammar schools also put working class kids in touch with people with higheraspirations, and it makes your own horizons expand. The busybods that form educational policy will never understand this, because it's not something that will show up in statistics.
Hen peck for prosperity?! I like it as a slogan for today's Tory lady ;-)
At my daughters' primary school, there was absolutely no attention paid to the 11+ whatsoever. Literally zero. No prep, no support, no nothing. If you were a poor kid aspiring to get into QE Boys or Henrietta Barnet - forget it. Not gonna happen. The two local grammars have kids commuting in from places like Uxbridge. You are up against every swotty kid in a 35-mile radius, and if their parents can afford private tuition or better tuition than yours can, well, tough luck. Expect no help or support from the school.
This is a major problem. Of course if there were grammar schools everywhere the 35 mile commute problem would disappear, but the aspiration and coaching one would remain.
Even my grammar school was almost no help in the Oxford entrance exam, a teacher found a couple of past papers but i was on my own basically. It was amazing to hear the stories of the amount of coaching the private school kids had had when I got there.
And dumbing everyone down to the same level is surely not the answer, as the rest of your post which I am not quoting puts so very well.
What a game...when you got a 3 ninja. The han d to hand combat used to be reenacted by our group in real time around the games table....and terminology/phrases from the game are still embedded inour eeveryday banter 30 years later. Could go on for ages though. As could Kingmaker which was similar ito Shogun but without the flair and funny accents
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
The abolition of grammar schools was a hugely popular policy when it came in because alongside it meant the abolition of secondary moderns as well. That was why Maggie T when she was Ed Sec continued with the programme that had been started by Labour.
Those wanting grammar schools back tend to ignore that what they are also proposing is the reintroduction of sec mods and there are likely to be about three times as many of the former than the latter.
The reintroduction of grammar schools doesn't have to mean a return to poor secondary moderns.
State secondary education funding should slanted in favour of the non grammar schools - essentially an extension of the excellent pupil premium policy. Grammars should also transfer pupils at 13 and at six form to cater for late developers.
Jack - we must stop writing from the same script ;-) As someone forking out 1000s for selective education for my children I'd welcome the return of state grammars (and so would my cellar).
One of the advantages of grammar schools is that they taught kids like me from rough backgrounds how to handle yourself in polite company. We need to be honest about the fact people get their foot on the ladder less from academic skills and more about how you come across when meeting people and at interviews. Grammar schools also put working class kids in touch with people with higher aspirations, and it makes your own horizons expand. The busybods that form educational policy will never understand this, because it's not something that will show up in statistics.
Grammars are great for the kids from poor families who get into them. And as Kent shows, Grammars take on less than average kids from free school meal families.
So, as all the analysis shows, for the rest the existence of Grammars are a disaster.
Only if you accept that the non grammar schools must be a disaster.
I most certainly don't. They should be a power house for a highly skilled work force and not factories for far too many of the lower skilled and barely numerate and literate.
The poor in our society are not well served by too many of our present day secondary modern schools aka Comprehensives, where the only comprehensive thing about them is their all too regular failure of the less advantaged.
What we really need is to have the ultimate fantasy election Conservatives 1979 versus Labour 1945 versus Liberals 1904 versus SDP 1981 versus Ecology party of the 70s versus National Front 1979 versus SNP 2015 versus PC 1999 versus Natural Law 1992 versus Irish Politics of the C19
What a game...when you got a 3 ninja. The han d to hand combat used to be reenacted by our group in real time around the games table....and terminology/phrases from the game are still embedded inour eeveryday banter 30 years later. Could go on for ages though. As could Kingmaker which was similar ito Shogun but without the flair and funny accents
"telling children they have failed at the age of 11 or 13 is not an effective educational policy. I know people in their sixties and seventies who still see themselves as failures because of something that happened when they were 11."
This meme that you are a failure if you don't get into grammar school, suggests two things:
1) Grammar schools were places that managed to achieve great success for a large number of people who went there (regardless of background) and so there is a [perceived] disadvantage in life if you didn't get in.
2) That the alternatives failed too many people.
Getting rid of something, because it was too successful seems like a very stupid approach. It should be that you look how their success can be replicated and expanded.
The one big issue with Grammar Schools seems to middle class parents pumping loads of money into tutoring. That suggests that many the way we selected kids is based too much on a test that can be taught to be passed, but also (and it is a big problem with state schools kids getting to Oxbridge) that the schools aren't prepping the kids properly regardless of background to test such tests (be it Grammar school entry or Oxbridge).
The abolition of grammar schools was a hugely popular policy when it came in because alongside it meant the abolition of secondary moderns as well. That was why Maggie T when she was Ed Sec continued with the programme that had been started by Labour.
Those wanting grammar schools back tend to ignore that what they are also proposing is the reintroduction of sec mods and there are likely to be about three times as many of the former than the latter.
The reintroduction of grammar schools doesn't have to mean a return to poor secondary moderns.
State secondary education funding should slanted in favour of the non grammar schools - essentially an extension of the excellent pupil premium policy. Grammars should also transfer pupils at 13 and at six form to cater for late developers.
Jack - we must stop writing from the same script ;-) As someone forking out 1000s for selective education for my children I'd welcome the return of state grammars (and so would my cellar).
You educate your children from the cellar !! ....
At Auchentennach Castle I have dungeons for the essential re-education of the yellow peril.
I went to a very rough school. Bad catchment area, all boys, lots of violence, lots of special needs kids, lots of problems - but I had a great education from some very inspiring teachers.
I wouldn't have had it any other way. I would've hated being sent away from my friends to a different school.
Kids are very adaptable and at my school I never for one moment stopped to contemplate how rough the school was, how decrepit the buildings were, how much it affected my life chances etc. It was just my school, it was all I knew and it was great.
What we really need is to have the ultimate fantasy election Conservatives 1979 versus Labour 1945 versus Liberals 1904 versus SDP 1981 versus Ecology party of the 70s versus National Front 1979 versus SNP 2015 versus PC 1999 versus Natural Law 1992 versus Irish Politics of the C19
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
Probably, but if the result is broadly :
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
You wouldn't be wishing to cast doubt on the maxim
@ThescreamingEagles Is this Times piece on Laws losing Yeovil backed up by anything other than the Comres SW marginal polling, and canvassing 'Sturgeon' anecdotes ?
And the Tories being confident and others saying his expenses saga isn't playing well, and tactical Lab voters don't like him at all.
Makes no difference if Laws is beaten by a Tory. One Tory beats another Tory !
That's a pretty dumb comment. It is vital for LAB that the Tories gain as few seats as possible for the LDs or anyone. This is a seat battle between the blue and red teams - something that you don't appear to get.
Unless the Cons get enough seats so that the "Blukip" option comes into play, any minor toing and froing between Con and LD is fairly immaterial, imho.
Yep - the Lib Dems have said they'll support the largest party. In fact they are the ONLY party to state this.
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
I'm trying to work out which is the more important edge case though, Lib-Dem/Con battles or Labour/SNP.
Comments
The single best policy of any party in this election is UKIP's vow to have a grammar school in every town.
Double post
Only people left propping it up are the Tories themselves.
Typical rightwing accommodation of mediocrity and failure: Oh look! Hospital being run crap is not quite as crap as first thought! Success!
Far better to play superior modern board games such as Ticket to Ride or Carcassonne.
Clutching at straws a bit there, Mike.
Leeds NW and Bristol West also important, and of course Con-Lab battles but Hallam is the king seat.
It will be interesting to come back to this after the election, as I am sure you intend to do!
So they were both utterly bored and utterly miserable.
I regret to say that you'll simply have to accept just the usual magnificent spectacle of an ARSE revelation on Tuesday and Saturday until the final and completely splendiferous eve of poll SUPER ARSE at 10:00pm on the 6th May
I know .... I know, you'll have intense ARSE withdrawal symptoms after the election but all good things must pass.
My brother was transferred at age 12 in the late 60s and at the grammar school I taught at we took many in the late 90s. however, the overall patterns was much too static and that was a mistake as was the often poor funding of sec mods. One of the biggest failings was that the technical schools failed to catch on - a huge pity and a mistake. Overall though there was more social mobility than there is now, when money is the big divider rather than innate ability. A more fluid system with a range of different type of secondaries could work well, but everything in education is hopelessly bogged down in politics and statism.
Grammar schools made a certain amount of sense in the past. They make no sense whatsoever in 2015. We can now tailor education to each child, monitoring individual progress, deficiencies, strengths etc etc. Even the idea of a class of 30 students of a similar ability, sitting in front of a teacher, absorbing wisdom (while actually looking out of the window, picking their nose) is fast becoming, erm, old skool.
The basic problem with education policy, is that everyone can (with some justification) call themselves an expert.
Panda watchers, note Berwickshire Roxburgh Selkirk and DCT.
As I've said passim, more than one ex-miner I knew were told at a young age that they would only be good for working in manual labour at the mine. After that, the schools essentially forgot about them. Why bother educating someone who is going to be a manual labourer.
Hopefully things have got better since then.
I only post if I've got something to say. In the fog of war, I don't think I'm going to have much to say that deserves a separate post. If I am moved by the spirit in the next couple of weeks though, I will not regard this as a vow of silence.
Following the election I expect I'll have some ideas about what the actual results mean for government formation if there's the hung Parliament that I expect. And on when the next election will be likely to take place.
I would support such a system in principle, although if it;s too many there are obvious potential issues with capacity. Sending people the other way would be tricky too.
I suspect in practice getting teachers to support a return to the 11+ would be almost impossible. The biggest problem is surely attitude - parents who inexplicably don't seem to care much about their own children, and kids who can't be arsed to learn. I am very far from being in a position to prescribe an answer I freely admit.
'Very surprised there's no thread header leading on the Tories regaining the lead with You Gov.'
No,the Montgomerie gossip is more important.
It was from Merthyr. Total poverty of aspiration. Staying out of jail and off drugs the highest ambition going. Not a bad start but not a very high ceiling either. School should be the way out, but it was never going to be. Desperately sad.
What is wrong with wanting children to do well in tests?
More difficult a question, why do i bother arguing with you :-(
He's basically the Dan Hodges of the right and sees this election as his big moment for a media land grab, at the expense of the party he purports to support
I was "saved" by the fact that my comprehensive had managed to retain its sixth form, but take up was so low that class sizes were tiny. 6 in my further maths class, 7 in physics, and 8 in chemistry. And I was lucky enough to be taught maths by a Cambridge Engineering PhD (rare as rocking horse p00 in the state sector).
State secondary education funding should slanted in favour of the non grammar schools - essentially an extension of the excellent pupil premium policy. Grammars should also transfer pupils at 13 and at six form to cater for late developers.
As a rule of thumb anything which upsets the teaching unions is a good idea ;-)
So unless your one size fits all model of schooling is going to alter the school days and years based upon various factors of the kids i.e. some kids being made to stay late / have less holidays, it wont work.
And we know that no school will do that. The only way to achieve this is different schools, with different approaches.
School of One is an approach that aims to provide "personalized" learning, but again it is hard to make it work as a one size fits for all schools.
An Indian friend of mine attended (from memory) two classes in his final year, and got one of the best A-level results in the country. He was capable of teaching himself using the resources the school had. But, lovely as he was, he was also an aberration. ;-)
I just don't see any justification for that. It could well be a Con gain (and indeed I am backing that) but not with that margin.
Funny
I only wish my children ,non academic,had been able to learn those practical skills instead of floundering in a one size fits all comprehensive. Getting expelled from school at age 15 was the best thing to happen to my son.He got a job and hasn't looked back.
;-)
If the largest party is Labour they don't need the Lib Dems.
I'm trying to work out which is the more important edge case though, Lib-Dem/Con battles or Labour/SNP.
I presume the same applies at university entrance. Several of the smart kids I knew at university had been told by their state school teachers there was no point even applying to Oxbridge because they wouldn't get in. I could scream thinking about all the smart kids who believed that, knowing no better. As Henry Ford said, if one person thinks "I can do that" and another thinks "I can't do that", they are probably both right. Comprehensives are secondary moderns, Mike. If you have a town that has a grammar and a secondary modern, abolishing the grammar school leaves you with just the secondary moderns.
Here's a thought experiment. You have an exam in which some kids get a grade A and others get grades B to E. This is unfair, so you abolish the A grade. Now nobody can get one. Everybody gets grade B to E.
Does this raise standards? How would you know?
Here's another fun thought experiment. You have two groups of exam candidates, one comprising pre-schoolers, the other comprising Russell Group astrophysics graduates. You set each group an identical test, which is to say their own name. You note the groups' scores. You then set a new test which is slightly harder, then another, and so on, until the final test requires a solution to Hilbert's 12th Problem.
You plot the difference in their scores through this process. In the first test there is no difference, because they all pass. In the last there is no difference because they all fail. In between you have a graph that looks probably like an upside down letter U.
When exam outcomes between these two groups of different test-passing ability converge, what does that tell you about the difficulty of the exam?
I think this demonstrates that the Labour/SNP meme is not just scaremongering by a fairly probable reality
twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/589480818004877314
twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/590420531792506881
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Patrick-O-8217-Flynn-8216-UKIP-political-map/story-26353258-detail/story.html
Especially as the shadow health secretary apparently is against inquiries into hospital failures, as they might hurt the hospital's reputation.
FFS. If Labour win, then Burnham has to go immediately. Sadly, he will not.
magnificent interview by A Neil with Jamie Reid
https://twitter.com/afneil
Technology is changing *everything* in education - we've barely even begun to appreciate the revolution that is taking place.
'Not looking good' is a very selective quote, and of course would depend on the context - not looking good for 5 years of DC? Not looking good for winning? A majority? For the major donor to continue his donating?
But don't let that get in the way of a good old fashioned PB tabloid header, complete with supporting evidence from a 'senior' Tory.
All the thread needs is Palmer to show up and tell us how this chimes with what he is hearing on the doorstep in Broxtowe - Daves heart isn't in it it Nick, everyone on the street says so.
The Tories don't deserve to win because they have forgotten how to be Tories, and are not prepared to legislate to enforce their trickle down recovery, letting the rich pocket the recovery instead.
UKIP don't deserve to win because they don't have a clue what to do about anything
The Liberal Democrats don't deserve to win because they have gone from idealism to political accoutrement for the highest bidder, and the nice Liberals have been perverted by SDP crap.
Labour don't deserve to win because they haven't been true to their founding principles since the Dark Lord Mandelson got into Kinnocks head and are now just traitorous metropolitan filth
The greens don't deserve to win because I am voting for them
The SNP don't deserve to win because they can't win
Ditto PC, SF, DUP, UUP and Alliance and SDLP
There is no attractive result, no practical result and no point given Grexit and the coming meltdown.
Worst election ever.
Most fun as well.
Con 270 .. Lab 280 .. LibDems 35 .. SNP 40 .. Others 25
Then Lab would much prefer to work with the LibDems than have to formally rely on the SNP
Edit - Jenny Scott. I loved her. Wonderful human being :-D
So, as all the analysis shows, for the rest the existence of Grammars are a disaster.
'Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister'?
Even my grammar school was almost no help in the Oxford entrance exam, a teacher found a couple of past papers but i was on my own basically. It was amazing to hear the stories of the amount of coaching the private school kids had had when I got there.
And dumbing everyone down to the same level is surely not the answer, as the rest of your post which I am not quoting puts so very well.
What a game...when you got a 3 ninja. The han d to hand combat used to be reenacted by our group in real time around the games table....and terminology/phrases from the game are still embedded inour eeveryday banter 30 years later. Could go on for ages though. As could Kingmaker which was similar ito Shogun but without the flair and funny accents
I most certainly don't. They should be a power house for a highly skilled work force and not factories for far too many of the lower skilled and barely numerate and literate.
The poor in our society are not well served by too many of our present day secondary modern schools aka Comprehensives, where the only comprehensive thing about them is their all too regular failure of the less advantaged.
Conservatives 1979 versus
Labour 1945 versus
Liberals 1904 versus
SDP 1981 versus
Ecology party of the 70s versus
National Front 1979 versus
SNP 2015 versus
PC 1999 versus
Natural Law 1992 versus
Irish Politics of the C19
At Auchentennach Castle I have dungeons for the essential re-education of the yellow peril.
I wouldn't have had it any other way. I would've hated being sent away from my friends to a different school.
Kids are very adaptable and at my school I never for one moment stopped to contemplate how rough the school was, how decrepit the buildings were, how much it affected my life chances etc. It was just my school, it was all I knew and it was great.
A bright kid will do well anywhere.