It could just as easily mean that discrimination continues even after entry to a profession. There is some possibility of this at least in Medicine and Law.
This is getting ridiculous - first they try to fix up school exam results, then they try to fix up university entry, now they are trying to fix up entry to the professions, and you're now in addition suggesting there is 'discrimination' for life.
Well, you can't fix up life.
What you can do is go right back to the beginning, and address the actual issue, which has virtually nothing to do with exams being biased, or university entrance being biased, or entry to elite professions being biased, or performance in those professions being biased, but instead has everything to do with an educational system which fails bright but less-privileged kids abysmally.
If they were taught to speak and write good English, if they were challenged so that they developed confidence, if they were taught that manners and presentation matter, if they were told a little bit about how the world works (hint: it doesn't work by giving prizes to everyone), if they were not allowed to coast in class, if their views of the world were stretched to take them outside the limits of their immediate surroundings, if they were encouraged to achieve, then we wouldn't need to artificially skew the selection procedures later on.
I'm not saying this is easy - but it is what needs to be done. Everything else is just displacement activity, and acts as a distraction from the real problem.
Axel Merk @AxelMerk 6m6 minutes ago EU committee on econ affairs grilling of Draghi closes with Q on whether more gender equality would resolve Eurozone woes. Draghi agrees
I hear a meeting is just about to take place in No 10 about what is to be done about purdah rules in EU Ref Bill. Watch this space.
Oh god, another round of people completely misunderstanding purdah will be soon upon us...
Let us hope they come to the sensible decision - what has been used in the Scottish referendum - lest the referendum be seen as illegitimate and allowing the issue to fester.
It could just as easily mean that discrimination continues even after entry to a profession. There is some possibility of this at least in Medicine and Law.
This is getting ridiculous - first they try to fix up school exam results, then they try to fix up university entry, now they are trying to fix up entry to the professions, and you're now in addition suggesting there is 'discrimination' for life.
Well, you can't fix up life.
What you can do is go right back to the beginning, and address the actual issue, which has virtually nothing to do with exams being biased, or university entrance being biased, or entry to elite professions being biased, or performance in those professions being biased, but instead has everything to do with an educational system which fails bright but less-privileged kids abysmally.
If they were taught to speak and write good English, if they were challenged so that they developed confidence, if they were taught that manners and presentation matter, if they were told a little bit about how the world works (hint: it doesn't work by giving prizes to everyone), if they were not allowed to coast in class, if their views of the world were stretched to take them outside the limits of their immediate surroundings, if they were encouraged to achieve, then we wouldn't need to artificially skew the selection procedures later on.
I'm not saying this is easy - but it is what needs to be done. Everything else is just displacement activity, and acts as a distraction from the real problem.
If they were taught to speak and write good English, if they were challenged so that they developed confidence, if they were taught that manners and presentation matter, if they were told a little bit about how the world works (hint: it doesn't work by giving prizes to everyone), if they were not allowed to coast in class, if their views of the world were stretched to take them outside the limits of their immediate surroundings, if they were encouraged to achieve, then we wouldn't need to artificially skew the selection procedures later on.
I'm not saying this is easy - but it is what needs to be done. Everything else is just displacement activity, and acts as a distraction from the real problem.
garth crooks has perfectly good manners and english but as a native of stoke I can still hear where he is from. "confidence" maybe to a certain degree, but everyone can tell where everyone is from and to deny that people know and make judgements on the back of that is bollocks, in my opinion
At present, the comments on such threads are well worth reading. There is a substantial body of Labour support that believes that Labour was cheated out of the election by a grand deception on the electorate.
It could just as easily mean that discrimination continues even after entry to a profession. There is some possibility of this at least in Medicine and Law.
This is getting ridiculous - first they try to fix up school exam results, then they try to fix up university entry, now they are trying to fix up entry to the professions, and you're now in addition suggesting there is 'discrimination' for life.
Well, you can't fix up life.
What you can do is go right back to the beginning, and address the actual issue, which has virtually nothing to do with exams being biased, or university entrance being biased, or entry to elite professions being biased, or performance in those professions being biased, but instead has everything to do with an educational system which fails bright but less-privileged kids abysmally.
If they were taught to speak and write good English, if they were challenged so that they developed confidence, if they were taught that manners and presentation matter, if they were told a little bit about how the world works (hint: it doesn't work by giving prizes to everyone), if they were not allowed to coast in class, if their views of the world were stretched to take them outside the limits of their immediate surroundings, if they were encouraged to achieve, then we wouldn't need to artificially skew the selection procedures later on.
I'm not saying this is easy - but it is what needs to be done. Everything else is just displacement activity, and acts as a distraction from the real problem.
Very well said. Though I fear that these days it will fall mostly on deaf ears.
It could just as easily mean that discrimination continues even after entry to a profession. There is some possibility of this at least in Medicine and Law.
This is getting ridiculous - first they try to fix up school exam results, then they try to fix up university entry, now they are trying to fix up entry to the professions, and you're now in addition suggesting there is 'discrimination' for life.
Well, you can't fix up life.
What you can do is go right back to the beginning, and address the actual issue, which has virtually nothing to do with exams being biased, or university entrance being biased, or entry to elite professions being biased, or performance in those professions being biased, but instead has everything to do with an educational system which fails bright but less-privileged kids abysmally.
If they were taught to speak and write good English, if they were challenged so that they developed confidence, if they were taught that manners and presentation matter, if they were told a little bit about how the world works (hint: it doesn't work by giving prizes to everyone), if they were not allowed to coast in class, if their views of the world were stretched to take them outside the limits of their immediate surroundings, if they were encouraged to achieve, then we wouldn't need to artificially skew the selection procedures later on.
I'm not saying this is easy - but it is what needs to be done. Everything else is just displacement activity, and acts as a distraction from the real problem.
Very well said. Though I fear that these days it will fall mostly on deaf ears.
In other words bring back grammar schools, my pet subject.
I don't even bother to look but how has social mobility increased since grammar schools were abolished?
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
With Corbyn on the ballot, people who would otherwise not have bothered to vote will now take part. If they use their second preferences, they will break for Burnham. AB must be pleased to have JC on the ballot!
Yes, that's my net reading of it, though it's possible a few members won't rank beyond 1 so he might lose a couple off the back of that.
With Labour roundly stuffed in a GE they should have won the recriminations are beginning.
Does anyone else foresee a huge split coming, and I don't mean behind the scenes a la Brown/Blair?
I can see the Blairites breaking off to form a new party with what's left of the Lib Dems, and Corbyn, Abbot, Skinner and Owen Jones will keep the rest. Bless'em.
garth crooks has perfectly good manners and english but as a native of stoke I can still hear where he is from. "confidence" maybe to a certain degree, but everyone can tell where everyone is from and to deny that people know and make judgements on the back of that is bollocks, in my opinion
I don't deny that prejudice exists (and my earlier post indicates that I am concerned with some of the stuff that was in the report which hinted at it) ...BUT...
I support Richard's proposals and believe that if they were followed then I've no doubt that the state system would create higher quality candidates for employment in the real world AND THEN make it less easy for those employers who suffer from the "People like us" syndrome to continue to discriminate.
FYI - There's a thread going up at 6pm that will need your participation/suggestions.
Can I strongly urge PBers to keep on topic on that thread/not be silly/aggressive/abusive as it will be viewed widely.
Were it to be a success it will be repeated.
Tease!
(And the odds on PBers staying on topic, let alone the rest, can't be less than 100/1!)
Keiran's polling matters podcast this week is with someone who was at the heart of Labour's election strategy/campaign.
He meets them tomorrow and wants some questions to ask.
Who better to ask than PBers?
"Why doesn't Ed have a bone in his nose?" "Who should have Napoleon have appointed as subordinate commanders instead of Ney and Grouchy?" "Did you know that tomorrow, June 16th, is the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's last victory?"
It could just as easily mean that discrimination continues even after entry to a profession. There is some possibility of this at least in Medicine and Law.
This is getting ridiculous - first they try to fix up school exam results, then they try to fix up university entry, now they are trying to fix up entry to the professions, and you're now in addition suggesting there is 'discrimination' for life.
Well, you can't fix up life.
What you can do is go right back to the beginning, and address the actual issue, which has virtually nothing to do with exams being biased, or university entrance being biased, or entry to elite professions being biased, or performance in those professions being biased, but instead has everything to do with an educational system which fails bright but less-privileged kids abysmally.
If they were taught to speak and write good English, if they were challenged so that they developed confidence, if they were taught that manners and presentation matter, if they were told a little bit about how the world works (hint: it doesn't work by giving prizes to everyone), if they were not allowed to coast in class, if their views of the world were stretched to take them outside the limits of their immediate surroundings, if they were encouraged to achieve, then we wouldn't need to artificially skew the selection procedures later on.
I'm not saying this is easy - but it is what needs to be done. Everything else is just displacement activity, and acts as a distraction from the real problem.
Very well said. Though I fear that these days it will fall mostly on deaf ears.
In other words bring back grammar schools, my pet subject.
I don't even bother to look but how has social mobility increased since grammar schools were abolished?
Where they haven't been abolished, grammar schools do worse than elsewhere for this:
"You can see that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas.
There is an narrower idea out there in the ether that grammar schools are better for propelling poor children to the very top of the tree. But, again, that is not true. Poor children are less likely to score very highly at GCSE in grammar areas than the rest."
"If you plot how well children do on average by household deprivation for selective areas and for the rest of the country, you can see that the net effect of grammar schools is to disadvantage poor children and help the rich."
"You can see that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas.
There is an narrower idea out there in the ether that grammar schools are better for propelling poor children to the very top of the tree. But, again, that is not true. Poor children are less likely to score very highly at GCSE in grammar areas than the rest."
"If you plot how well children do on average by household deprivation for selective areas and for the rest of the country, you can see that the net effect of grammar schools is to disadvantage poor children and help the rich."
That article is behind the FT firewall so I cannot read all of it, but I do know that the basis of this argument was rubbished in other reports as being written by vested interests.
No-one will ever convince me that abolishing grammar schools was beneficial to bright working class kids. How have we done in educational standards in the last 50 years, have we moved up or down the international table?
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
With Corbyn on the ballot, people who would otherwise not have bothered to vote will now take part. If they use their second preferences, they will break for Burnham. AB must be pleased to have JC on the ballot!
Yes, that's my net reading of it, though it's possible a few members won't rank beyond 1 so he might lose a couple off the back of that.
With Labour roundly stuffed in a GE they should have won the recriminations are beginning.
Does anyone else foresee a huge split coming, and I don't mean behind the scenes a la Brown/Blair?
I can see the Blairites breaking off to form a new party with what's left of the Lib Dems, and Corbyn, Abbot, Skinner and Owen Jones will keep the rest. Bless'em.
Hm, Labour are a bit slow, but they're not that daft. That would probably hand the 2020 election to the Tories on a plate, more than it is already.
They know they need a coalition of leftward leaners from the centre leftwards to have a chance, just as the Tories have seemed to recognise that they need a coalition of rightward leaners from the centre rightwards.
And what you're suggesting is exactly what happened in 1981 to Labour with the SDP, and not sure that's going to happen again.
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
With Corbyn on the ballot, people who would otherwise not have bothered to vote will now take part. If they use their second preferences, they will break for Burnham. AB must be pleased to have JC on the ballot!
Yes, that's my net reading of it, though it's possible a few members won't rank beyond 1 so he might lose a couple off the back of that.
With Labour roundly stuffed in a GE they should have won the recriminations are beginning.
Does anyone else foresee a huge split coming, and I don't mean behind the scenes a la Brown/Blair?
I can see the Blairites breaking off to form a new party with what's left of the Lib Dems, and Corbyn, Abbot, Skinner and Owen Jones will keep the rest. Bless'em.
I think the Lib Dems in the last election showed the level of support there is for "Blairite" policies.
I agree with the general criticism of the "barrier to top jobs" report, but I don't feel comfortable with this item: QUOTE Candidates who show they are "confident", "poised" and "polished", who articulate themselves in a certain way, and in the right accent, who have experienced foreign travel and the kind of social situations, such as large dinners, helpful to business, are considered safe bets. END-QUOTE http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33109052
Whichever way you try to rationalose it away, Candidates from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have developed such attributes than those from better off backgrounds - especially Public Schools which are famously good at instilling confidence (as discussed in some recent PB threads).
We can fix the schools and universities so that they excellent candidates from all backgrounds, but dare I say that we also maybe need to tweak the expectations of employers just a little bit to give them all the fairest chance possible?
Of the disparity in entry to Oxford - for which I once had the stats - at least two thirds, maybe more, disappeared when you controlled for A-level grades. If Richard is right to say it's an omission from the report, then it's glaring...
At least Oxford University is an equaliser. Everybody who takes an arts course there loses the ability to count beyond two.
I don't deny that prejudice exists (and my earlier post indicates that I am concerned with some of the stuff that was in the report which hinted at it) ...BUT...
I support Richard's proposals and believe that if they were followed then I've no doubt that the state system would create higher quality candidates for employment in the real world AND THEN make it less easy for those employers who suffer from the "People like us" syndrome to continue to discriminate.
I may have missed Richard's proposals, (inebriated) certainly agree the system could do better (I could/should (possibly) have gone to oxbridge- although in the end fairly happy with the route i took)
My worry over Corbyn on the ballot is that he will split the harder left vote in Labour ranks that would have otherwise ensured Burnham safely through as Leader.
This surely has to help Liz, the only one of the Labour candidates who seems in my view remotely attractive to Middle England and therefore electable as future PM.
As a Tory voter, that is not an outcome I want!
With Corbyn on the ballot, people who would otherwise not have bothered to vote will now take part. If they use their second preferences, they will break for Burnham. AB must be pleased to have JC on the ballot!
Yes, that's my net reading of it, though it's possible a few members won't rank beyond 1 so he might lose a couple off the back of that.
With Labour roundly stuffed in a GE they should have won the recriminations are beginning.
Does anyone else foresee a huge split coming, and I don't mean behind the scenes a la Brown/Blair?
I can see the Blairites breaking off to form a new party with what's left of the Lib Dems, and Corbyn, Abbot, Skinner and Owen Jones will keep the rest. Bless'em.
I think the Lib Dems in the last election showed the level of support there is for "Blairite" policies.
Plenty of support within the Labour ranks.
Anyway I mean a centralised party, the Left such as Corbyn will destroy Labour electorally.
No-one will ever convince me that abolishing grammar schools was beneficial to bright working class kids. How have we done in educational standards in the last 50 years, have we moved up or down the international table?
when the international table is based on chinese govt statistics (for some of the best kids), it's best to be sceptical. Singapore/HK results may be true but their populations are perhaps a bit unusual
SLAB have finally released membership numbers, there were 13,000 before the election but this number has apparently fallen with them kicking out members who voted SNP and folks cancelling their memberships:
That article is behind the FT firewall so I cannot read all of it, but I do know that the basis of this argument was rubbished in other reports as being written by vested interests.
No-one will ever convince me that abolishing grammar schools was beneficial to bright working class kids. How have we done in educational standards in the last 50 years, have we moved up or down the international table?
Antifrank is just picking reports that suit his view.
As I will also do.
A previous Sutton Trust report showed that having selection in an area made no difference to the exam results of the neighbouring Comprehensive schools but, because the Grammars had better results, overall the average exam results for a selective area were higher than non selective areas. Grammar schools improve educational outcomes overall.
And, as you say, the standing of the UK's education system overall has collapsed catastrophically over the last few decades so clearly the current system is failing our children badly.
Antifrank's solution seems to be to encourage lowest common denominator standards just to make sure everyone fails equally.
Left Foot Forward has an article on the Policy Exchange verdict on the poll. Some interesting. if obvious conclusions. Political activists don't think like most of the population (amazing) and worst of all ...
"At the General Election it wasn’t necessarily that swing voters were worried about Ed Miliband taxing the rich or stamping out aspiration. More likely they were worried about Labour giving a green light to ‘freeloaders’, health tourists and foreign and domestic criminals. Was Ed Miliband tough enough? Hell no he wasn’t tough enough."
That article is behind the FT firewall so I cannot read all of it, but I do know that the basis of this argument was rubbished in other reports as being written by vested interests.
No-one will ever convince me that abolishing grammar schools was beneficial to bright working class kids. How have we done in educational standards in the last 50 years, have we moved up or down the international table?
Antifrank is just picking reports that suit his view.
As I will also do.
A previous Sutton Trust report showed that having selection in an area made no difference to the exam results of the neighbouring Comprehensive schools but, because the Grammars had better results, overall the average exam results for a selective area were higher than non selective areas. Grammar schools improve educational outcomes overall.
And, as you say, the standing of the UK's education system overall has collapsed catastrophically over the last few decades so clearly the current system is failing our children badly.
Antifrank's solution seems to be to encourage lowest common denominator standards just to make sure everyone fails equally.
I live in a selective area, I moved here deliberately when my youngest two girls were 10 and 8. They both passed the 11 plus and went to a grammar school, I think from past threads Financier's daughter went to the same school.
My youngest granddaughter has just passed, but my eldest granddaughter had little prospect of passing and didn't, however she did much better at the comprehensive than we could ever have hoped for. It's highly unlikely that her younger brothers will pass but we are very happy that they will go to the same comprehensive that she went to.
Standards across the area are excellent. not just the grammars.
That article is behind the FT firewall so I cannot read all of it, but I do know that the basis of this argument was rubbished in other reports as being written by vested interests.
No-one will ever convince me that abolishing grammar schools was beneficial to bright working class kids. How have we done in educational standards in the last 50 years, have we moved up or down the international table?
Antifrank is just picking reports that suit his view.
As I will also do.
A previous Sutton Trust report showed that having selection in an area made no difference to the exam results of the neighbouring Comprehensive schools but, because the Grammars had better results, overall the average exam results for a selective area were higher than non selective areas. Grammar schools improve educational outcomes overall.
And, as you say, the standing of the UK's education system overall has collapsed catastrophically over the last few decades so clearly the current system is failing our children badly.
Antifrank's solution seems to be to encourage lowest common denominator standards just to make sure everyone fails equally.
Nigel4England asked a question and I gave him a link to a lengthy article with detailed tables answering it.
He didn't like the answer I gave. Neither did you. C'est la vie. There are too many people who are in search of policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy.
I didn't propose a solution because this is not my area of expertise. But grammar schools don't seem to be the solution.
Left Foot Forward has an article on the Policy Exchange verdict on the poll. Some interesting. if obvious conclusions. Political activists don't think like most of the population (amazing) and worst of all ...
"At the General Election it wasn’t necessarily that swing voters were worried about Ed Miliband taxing the rich or stamping out aspiration. More likely they were worried about Labour giving a green light to ‘freeloaders’, health tourists and foreign and domestic criminals. Was Ed Miliband tough enough? Hell no he wasn’t tough enough."
Bad news for the Guardian readers?
Yes, it's a very good article. This is the most illustrative bit:
Everyone has a preferred explanation as to why Labour suffered such a crushing defeat at the election and everyone’s diagnosis seems, conveniently, to align with their own politics. For those on the left the problem is that Labour wasn’t left-wing enough. If they are ‘modernisers’ or ‘Blairites’ on the other hand, Ed Miliband’s Labour party had ‘veered off to the left’ and wasn’t ‘aspirational enough.
According to the data both are to some extent wrong. Swing voters sit on the right on some issues and on the left on others. They take a tough line on crime and welfare and want less immigration. Yet they take a left-wing approach to NHS funding and structure and private sector involvement in public services. They also want higher taxes on the rich and big business.
These aren’t ‘centrists’ – they take a strong line on most issues; and that line is sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left. It’s difficult with this in mind to maintain that Labour’s problem was a lack of ‘aspiration’. But that doesn’t mean the diagnosis is any more comforting for the left: Labour should take a tougher line on crime and a fairer (perhaps a more contributory) approach to welfare if it wants to win again.
The idea that people in low-income swing seats are demanding Labour be nicer to millionaires or big-business fat cats or be more willing to flog off public services to the private sector has no basis in reality.
I do agree with a lot of that, although I think there is an element of non-meritocracy going on. Poor kids often can't get their foot in the door due to a lack of internships and experience, which are often unpaid (so poor kids can't afford them), or awarded through family and friendship connections (which poor kids don't have).
Some of the few state grammars that there are, which are generally trusts, do seem to have become fiefdoms which operate seriously dubious practices that seem to encourage the pushy. For instance, the true state grammar in our local authority, even though application is via the LEA form and offer day is March as per the comprehensives, had its open day 4 months before the secondary application process began, and then had a deadline for registering for exams within 48 hours of the forms and information on the process being sent out to parents, with exams then taking place around about 10 days later.
There was no need to run such a tight timescale and the entire reason for the timings seemed to be to limit applications to 'the right kind of people'.
They may have had their own quirks, but I don't seriously imagine that grammar schools operated like that 50 years ago.
Left Foot Forward has an article on the Policy Exchange verdict on the poll. Some interesting. if obvious conclusions. Political activists don't think like most of the population (amazing) and worst of all ...
"At the General Election it wasn’t necessarily that swing voters were worried about Ed Miliband taxing the rich or stamping out aspiration. More likely they were worried about Labour giving a green light to ‘freeloaders’, health tourists and foreign and domestic criminals. Was Ed Miliband tough enough? Hell no he wasn’t tough enough."
Bad news for the Guardian readers?
Yes, it's a very good article. This is the most illustrative bit:
Everyone has a preferred explanation as to why Labour suffered such a crushing defeat at the election and everyone’s diagnosis seems, conveniently, to align with their own politics. For those on the left the problem is that Labour wasn’t left-wing enough. If they are ‘modernisers’ or ‘Blairites’ on the other hand, Ed Miliband’s Labour party had ‘veered off to the left’ and wasn’t ‘aspirational enough.
According to the data both are to some extent wrong. Swing voters sit on the right on some issues and on the left on others. They take a tough line on crime and welfare and want less immigration. Yet they take a left-wing approach to NHS funding and structure and private sector involvement in public services. They also want higher taxes on the rich and big business.
These aren’t ‘centrists’ – they take a strong line on most issues; and that line is sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left. It’s difficult with this in mind to maintain that Labour’s problem was a lack of ‘aspiration’. But that doesn’t mean the diagnosis is any more comforting for the left: Labour should take a tougher line on crime and a fairer (perhaps a more contributory) approach to welfare if it wants to win again.
The idea that people in low-income swing seats are demanding Labour be nicer to millionaires or big-business fat cats or be more willing to flog off public services to the private sector has no basis in reality.
I think the Lib Dems in the last election showed the level of support there is for "Blairite" policies.
That's an intriguing comment.
I've seen the LibDems criticised for being Tories or betraying the "progressive" cause, but never seen them accused of being Blairites.
May I ask you, in a friendly way, why you think that the LibDems policies were/are Blairite?
Well, it depends what we're defining as "Blairite": the policies Blair actually espoused when he was leader (high public spending, the idea that government was vital to help people rather than this "self-reliance" bollocks, prepared to upset the fat cats on things like the minimum wage rather than being slavishly "pro-business" all the time), or what today's Blairites say.
Kendall's platform sounds very much like what the Lib Dems just stood on: virtually indistinguishable from the Tories on the economy and public services, but being pro-EU, and throwing out some token talk about how inequality's a bad thing but that it's less important than "balancing the books" or keeping big businesses happy (thus making it impossible to actually do anything that would help the inequality problem).
@kdugdalemsp: . @StewartHosieSNP says SNP will vote for Edward Leigh's full fiscal autonomy. Walking into lobby with Tories for £7.6billion of extra cuts
That article is behind the FT firewall so I cannot read all of it, but I do know that the basis of this argument was rubbished in other reports as being written by vested interests.
No-one will ever convince me that abolishing grammar schools was beneficial to bright working class kids. How have we done in educational standards in the last 50 years, have we moved up or down the international table?
Antifrank is just picking reports that suit his view.
As I will also do.
A previous Sutton Trust report showed that having selection in an area made no difference to the exam results of the neighbouring Comprehensive schools but, because the Grammars had better results, overall the average exam results for a selective area were higher than non selective areas. Grammar schools improve educational outcomes overall.
And, as you say, the standing of the UK's education system overall has collapsed catastrophically over the last few decades so clearly the current system is failing our children badly.
Antifrank's solution seems to be to encourage lowest common denominator standards just to make sure everyone fails equally.
Nigel4England asked a question and I gave him a link to a lengthy article with detailed tables answering it.
He didn't like the answer I gave. Neither did you. C'est la vie. There are too many people who are in search of policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy.
I didn't propose a solution because this is not my area of expertise. But grammar schools don't seem to be the solution.
Well the evidence from the Sutton Trust is that Grammar schools improve the general educational standard of any area rather than reduce it. I think that is a good basis for policy.
The idea that people in low-income swing seats are demanding Labour be nicer to millionaires or big-business fat cats or be more willing to flog off public services to the private sector has no basis in reality.
I think you have to be very careful with that argument. Yes, what you say may be true in the sense of the answers which such voters will give to specific questions on those policy areas. However, the package as a whole has to make sense if the party is to gain economic credibility, and being 'nicer to millionaires' and pro-business and looking for efficiencies in public services are all part of the overall picture. In other words, the sum of individual policies which show well in focus groups or opinion polls is not necessarily a policy package which those same groups will find credible.
There was no need to run such a tight timescale and the entire reason for the timings seemed to be to limit applications to 'the right kind of people'.
Are 'the right kind of people' somehow able to fill out forms faster?
The idea that people in low-income swing seats are demanding Labour be nicer to millionaires or big-business fat cats or be more willing to flog off public services to the private sector has no basis in reality.
I think you have to be very careful with that argument. Yes, what you say may be true in the sense of the answers which such voters will give to specific questions on those policy areas. However, the package as a whole has to make sense if the party is to gain economic credibility, and being 'nicer to millionaires' and pro-business and looking for efficiencies in public services are all part of the overall picture. In other words, the sum of individual policies which show well in focus groups or opinion polls is not necessarily a policy package which those same groups will find credible.
1. sterling post earlier.
2. That's precisely the conclusion that the Tories got to in 2005 and seems very likely to be the case in 2015, imo. Especially reading that recent leftfootforward post.
That article is behind the FT firewall so I cannot read all of it, but I do know that the basis of this argument was rubbished in other reports as being written by vested interests.
No-one will ever convince me that abolishing grammar schools was beneficial to bright working class kids. How have we done in educational standards in the last 50 years, have we moved up or down the international table?
Antifrank is just picking reports that suit his view.
As I will also do.
A previous Sutton Trust report showed that having selection in an area made no difference to the exam results of the neighbouring Comprehensive schools but, because the Grammars had better results, overall the average exam results for a selective area were higher than non selective areas. Grammar schools improve educational outcomes overall.
And, as you say, the standing of the UK's education system overall has collapsed catastrophically over the last few decades so clearly the current system is failing our children badly.
Antifrank's solution seems to be to encourage lowest common denominator standards just to make sure everyone fails equally.
Nigel4England asked a question and I gave him a link to a lengthy article with detailed tables answering it.
He didn't like the answer I gave. Neither did you. C'est la vie. There are too many people who are in search of policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy.
I didn't propose a solution because this is not my area of expertise. But grammar schools don't seem to be the solution.
Well the evidence from the Sutton Trust is that Grammar schools improve the general educational standard of any area rather than reduce it. I think that is a good basis for policy.
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn."
- M. H. Thatcher, speaking at Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
2. That's precisely the conclusion that the Tories got to in 2005 and seems very likely to be the case in 2015, imo. Especially reading that recent leftfootforward post.
But the Tories' 2010 manifesto was more to the right than their 2005 manifesto. They were much tougher on public spending, and their immigration policies were equally tough (though admittedly they didn't put it as much at the forefront of their campaign). The main differences were that in 2010 they had a much more attractive leader, and the country's patience with the sitting government had finally run out.
No great surprise in the ICM poll - second term Governments do not generally get much of a post-election honeymoon. Labour probably ahead by the end of the year.
Nice work if you can get it.....Nigel Farage seen on the streets of St Peter port today, just off Cunard's Queen Elizabeth where he's giving a talk.... (last time I was on Cunard Rolf Harris was giving a talk - and very entertaining he was too - I later found out the police were raiding his home as we crossed the Atlantic....)
2. That's precisely the conclusion that the Tories got to in 2005 and seems very likely to be the case in 2015, imo. Especially reading that recent leftfootforward post.
But the Tories' 2010 manifesto was more to the right than their 2005 manifesto. They were much tougher on public spending, and their immigration policies were equally tough (though admittedly they didn't put it as much at the forefront of their campaign). The main differences were that in 2010 they had a much more attractive leader, and the country's patience with the sitting government had finally run out.
I'd dispute that, massively. Or at least say it was far less authoritarian in 2010 than 2005.
2005 was basically a list of things Micheal Howard didn't particularly like.
Secondly, the point actually being made was that polling showed that many of the policies in the 2005 manifesto were, on their own, rather popular. The sum total was a manifesto that was nasty, short-sighted and, well, unelectable.
"MP and wife split over school - Leftwinger's conflict over son's education was key element in marriage collapse."
Bloody hell. Imagine growing up knowing that your father put his career before your own well being.
Pathetic.
In contrast Ken McIntosh, a candidate for the Scottish Labour leadership allowed his son to take up a scholarship at Merchiston, probably the poshest school in Scotland, an all boy boarding school. And quite right too. Its a fantastic opportunity for the lad who is obviously quite bright.
I think the Lib Dems in the last election showed the level of support there is for "Blairite" policies.
That's an intriguing comment.
I've seen the LibDems criticised for being Tories or betraying the "progressive" cause, but never seen them accused of being Blairites.
May I ask you, in a friendly way, why you think that the LibDems policies were/are Blairite?
Well, it depends what we're defining as "Blairite": the policies Blair actually espoused when he was leader (high public spending, the idea that government was vital to help people rather than this "self-reliance" bollocks, prepared to upset the fat cats on things like the minimum wage rather than being slavishly "pro-business" all the time), or what today's Blairites say.
Kendall's platform sounds very much like what the Lib Dems just stood on: virtually indistinguishable from the Tories on the economy and public services, but being pro-EU, and throwing out some token talk about how inequality's a bad thing but that it's less important than "balancing the books" or keeping big businesses happy (thus making it impossible to actually do anything that would help the inequality problem).
Thank you for the reply - you make some interesting points.
I totally agree with you about the policies followed when Blair was leader between 1997-2007. They were essentially "New Labour".
"Blairism", as a distinct philosophy grafted over the top of New Labour came in during the second term 2001-2005, with liberal interventionism (putting the world to rights) , and aggressive reform of public services (i.e Tory reforms). Arguments over public service reform only made the Blair/Brown war even worse, of course.
I think that the term "Blairite" has become synonymous with New Labour, and it shouldn't be. That wretched idiot Blair ruined the project.
Comments
Axel Merk @AxelMerk 6m6 minutes ago
EU committee on econ affairs grilling of Draghi closes with Q on whether more gender equality would resolve Eurozone woes. Draghi agrees
Europe's economy is doomed.
Let us hope they come to the sensible decision - what has been used in the Scottish referendum - lest the referendum be seen as illegitimate and allowing the issue to fester.
ICM/Guardian (changes vs election):
CON 37 (-1)
LAB 31 (=)
LIB 8 (=)
UKIP 13 (=)
GRN 5 (+1)
12th-14th
N=1,004
Tabs http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/guardian-poll-june-2015 …
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/15/labour-leadership-cooper-kendall-burnham-corbyn
At present, the comments on such threads are well worth reading. There is a substantial body of Labour support that believes that Labour was cheated out of the election by a grand deception on the electorate.
I don't even bother to look but how has social mobility increased since grammar schools were abolished?
Does anyone else foresee a huge split coming, and I don't mean behind the scenes a la Brown/Blair?
I can see the Blairites breaking off to form a new party with what's left of the Lib Dems, and Corbyn, Abbot, Skinner and Owen Jones will keep the rest. Bless'em.
I support Richard's proposals and believe that if they were followed then I've no doubt that the state system would create higher quality candidates for employment in the real world AND THEN make it less easy for those employers who suffer from the "People like us" syndrome to continue to discriminate.
"Who should have Napoleon have appointed as subordinate commanders instead of Ney and Grouchy?"
"Did you know that tomorrow, June 16th, is the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's last victory?"
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/
"You can see that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas.
There is an narrower idea out there in the ether that grammar schools are better for propelling poor children to the very top of the tree. But, again, that is not true. Poor children are less likely to score very highly at GCSE in grammar areas than the rest."
"If you plot how well children do on average by household deprivation for selective areas and for the rest of the country, you can see that the net effect of grammar schools is to disadvantage poor children and help the rich."
In other words bring back grammar schools, my pet subject.
I don't even bother to look but how has social mobility increased since grammar schools were abolished?
Where they haven't been abolished, grammar schools do worse than elsewhere for this:
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/
"You can see that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas.
There is an narrower idea out there in the ether that grammar schools are better for propelling poor children to the very top of the tree. But, again, that is not true. Poor children are less likely to score very highly at GCSE in grammar areas than the rest."
"If you plot how well children do on average by household deprivation for selective areas and for the rest of the country, you can see that the net effect of grammar schools is to disadvantage poor children and help the rich."
That article is behind the FT firewall so I cannot read all of it, but I do know that the basis of this argument was rubbished in other reports as being written by vested interests.
No-one will ever convince me that abolishing grammar schools was beneficial to bright working class kids. How have we done in educational standards in the last 50 years, have we moved up or down the international table?
They know they need a coalition of leftward leaners from the centre leftwards to have a chance, just as the Tories have seemed to recognise that they need a coalition of rightward leaners from the centre rightwards.
And what you're suggesting is exactly what happened in 1981 to Labour with the SDP, and not sure that's going to happen again.
Anyway I mean a centralised party, the Left such as Corbyn will destroy Labour electorally.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/no-members-no-money-why-going-it-alone-more-difficult-route-scottish-labour-you
Given the mixed union backing establishing a separate stand alone party isn't looking feasible.
As I will also do.
A previous Sutton Trust report showed that having selection in an area made no difference to the exam results of the neighbouring Comprehensive schools but, because the Grammars had better results, overall the average exam results for a selective area were higher than non selective areas. Grammar schools improve educational outcomes overall.
And, as you say, the standing of the UK's education system overall has collapsed catastrophically over the last few decades so clearly the current system is failing our children badly.
Antifrank's solution seems to be to encourage lowest common denominator standards just to make sure everyone fails equally.
"At the General Election it wasn’t necessarily that swing voters were worried about Ed Miliband taxing the rich or stamping out aspiration. More likely they were worried about Labour giving a green light to ‘freeloaders’, health tourists and foreign and domestic criminals. Was Ed Miliband tough enough? Hell no he wasn’t tough enough."
Bad news for the Guardian readers?
My youngest granddaughter has just passed, but my eldest granddaughter had little prospect of passing and didn't, however she did much better at the comprehensive than we could ever have hoped for. It's highly unlikely that her younger brothers will pass but we are very happy that they will go to the same comprehensive that she went to.
Standards across the area are excellent. not just the grammars.
Corbyn has absolutely nothing to contribute to that objective or discussion. But no doubt it will make them feel better...
He didn't like the answer I gave. Neither did you. C'est la vie. There are too many people who are in search of policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy.
I didn't propose a solution because this is not my area of expertise. But grammar schools don't seem to be the solution.
I've seen the LibDems criticised for being Tories or betraying the "progressive" cause, but never seen them accused of being Blairites.
May I ask you, in a friendly way, why you think that the LibDems policies were/are Blairite?
Everyone has a preferred explanation as to why Labour suffered such a crushing defeat at the election and everyone’s diagnosis seems, conveniently, to align with their own politics. For those on the left the problem is that Labour wasn’t left-wing enough. If they are ‘modernisers’ or ‘Blairites’ on the other hand, Ed Miliband’s Labour party had ‘veered off to the left’ and wasn’t ‘aspirational enough.
According to the data both are to some extent wrong. Swing voters sit on the right on some issues and on the left on others. They take a tough line on crime and welfare and want less immigration. Yet they take a left-wing approach to NHS funding and structure and private sector involvement in public services. They also want higher taxes on the rich and big business.
These aren’t ‘centrists’ – they take a strong line on most issues; and that line is sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left. It’s difficult with this in mind to maintain that Labour’s problem was a lack of ‘aspiration’. But that doesn’t mean the diagnosis is any more comforting for the left: Labour should take a tougher line on crime and a fairer (perhaps a more contributory) approach to welfare if it wants to win again.
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/06/why-every-labour-member-should-read-the-new-policy-exchange-report/
The idea that people in low-income swing seats are demanding Labour be nicer to millionaires or big-business fat cats or be more willing to flog off public services to the private sector has no basis in reality.
I do agree with a lot of that, although I think there is an element of non-meritocracy going on. Poor kids often can't get their foot in the door due to a lack of internships and experience, which are often unpaid (so poor kids can't afford them), or awarded through family and friendship connections (which poor kids don't have).
There was no need to run such a tight timescale and the entire reason for the timings seemed to be to limit applications to 'the right kind of people'.
They may have had their own quirks, but I don't seriously imagine that grammar schools operated like that 50 years ago.
2. Stampede by Labour MSPs to become deputy leader
Kendall's platform sounds very much like what the Lib Dems just stood on: virtually indistinguishable from the Tories on the economy and public services, but being pro-EU, and throwing out some token talk about how inequality's a bad thing but that it's less important than "balancing the books" or keeping big businesses happy (thus making it impossible to actually do anything that would help the inequality problem).
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2
"MP and wife split over school -
Leftwinger's conflict over son's education was key element in marriage collapse."
2. That's precisely the conclusion that the Tories got to in 2005 and seems very likely to be the case in 2015, imo. Especially reading that recent leftfootforward post.
- M. H. Thatcher, speaking at Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
Titter
New Thread
Labour heading for sub 25 as the Scottish malaise spreads south.
2005 was basically a list of things Micheal Howard didn't particularly like.
Secondly, the point actually being made was that polling showed that many of the policies in the 2005 manifesto were, on their own, rather popular. The sum total was a manifesto that was nasty, short-sighted and, well, unelectable.
In contrast Ken McIntosh, a candidate for the Scottish Labour leadership allowed his son to take up a scholarship at Merchiston, probably the poshest school in Scotland, an all boy boarding school. And quite right too. Its a fantastic opportunity for the lad who is obviously quite bright.
I totally agree with you about the policies followed when Blair was leader between 1997-2007.
They were essentially "New Labour".
"Blairism", as a distinct philosophy grafted over the top of New Labour came in during the second term 2001-2005, with liberal interventionism (putting the world to rights) , and aggressive reform of public services (i.e Tory reforms). Arguments over public service reform only made the Blair/Brown war even worse, of course.
I think that the term "Blairite" has become synonymous with New Labour, and it shouldn't be. That wretched idiot Blair ruined the project.