Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
Sounds expensive. Four chemistry labs rather than one. Not sure the money is there for that.
The futility of Corbyn in three by elections. Collpasing in Cumbria, not in the game in Cambridgeshire, sweeping up in London Camberwell - where Labour already hold sway.
Green votes are particularly useless replacements for moderate, middle England, Labour ones
No. The Greens are significant in many middle England seats, where the middle-class Guardian/Independent vote is important - where they are irrelevant is Labour northern strongholds. If the Greens hadn't intervened in Broxtowe and say 60% of their supporters had gone Labour (anecdotally likely) we'd have held it in 2010 and the Tory majority would have halved in 2015. The Greens were a growing, existential threat to Labour in middle-class areas and now they aren't - it's one reason I voted Corbyn.
Well, I suppose Corbyn will stop Green voters making a difference to the result in such seats. After all, the Greens don't normally get 15,000 votes, which will be the size of the Tory majority in e.g. Stroud at the next election.
EDIT: and Root is on a positive charge now. If one of these gets out, maybe Bayliss should send in Butler and tell him to have a few free hits, get his confidence back.
Overall, though, the Greens are strongest in places that are already good for Labour. Inner London, and other urban areas with lots of students and public sector workers.
That result of c.80% for Labour and the Greens in Camberwell sort of explains how so many of their blogging and social media residents were so confused by the GE2015 result.
It shows again how much we are Two Nations, divided not by class, but by outlook.
In England, at least, there are probably three: 40% who lean centre-right, 25% who are solidly left and a further 15% who are centrist floaters.
There are a further 20% who couldn't give a toss. The trouble is the 25% shout so loudly they make it seem an even split.
Doesn't the definition of political centre mean that 50% are to the right of it, and 50% are to the left with most clustered around the centre like a bell curve?
Doesn't the political centre change over time? Compare the UK political centre in Attlee's time with now. And it certainly varies between countries. It is a relativist concept.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
Barking and Dagenham apparently plan to have a school with 3000 pupils to cope with the rise in immigration and overspill from Kent.
It reminds me a bit of dogs. It's not only to the owner's advantage to have a master-pet relationship, rather than letting the hound do whatever it likes. In the same way, children benefit from boundaries, rules and hierarchy.
Credit to my school, though, as the mistaken approach did not persist.
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Wait, do schools not do sit there, shut up and listen any more?
Cook, being a man who values his stats, really needs to just ensure he is not out at the end of the match - his average took a bit of a hit with that 20 month dry spell, and it's not easy to inch it back up when you've played over a hundred matches already. Why, he can increase his career average by 1-1.5 if he remains not out.
The ICC should also commission an all-stars timeless test for this pitch - go all out and try to make some sort of record setting event to make a virtue of it. Cook'd be a shoo-in for one of the teams, and I'm sure Chanderpaul and Dravid could be tempted out of retirement for it as well. Just a question of which bowlers would have to donate their bodies for the 4 weeks of the game.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
I once heard a speaker say two groups of people tend to rise to the top - the cream and the scum - probably true and they don't mix well.
On the grammar argument lots of opponents quote research - much of the research is conducted by social scientists who are implacably opposed to selection. Statistics tell some people what they want to know.
A critic writes. I enjoy new comedy.The hit of the Autumn has been Carry on Corbyn. It is of course a strictly amateur production.It features some new stars of the future -Ronald McDonnell, Diane Abbott(here without Costello) and Richard Burgon. As another critic has observed - is there no start to their talents? Some in the three pound seats appear to delight at the novelty of the show. I worry that it may not have the staying power to get through to Christmas. The production company say that it will run for 54 months.For a farce that seems like an eternity to me. Even after one month the script is tired and the jokes begin to pall. If I were you I would catch it before it closes for good.
Plato, the school you mentioned in the TV programme with the Chinese teachers was Bohunt in North Hampshire. I used to live near there and that was regarded as the top state school in the area!
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Didn't realise there was a difference between streaming/setting...
On that note, the Germans had Siztenbleiben[sp], which means that if you fail end of year exams you have to resit that year. Or, at least, they did when I learnt German at school.
Yes, I'm all for setting but very much against streaming. The notion that a pupil is equally good at all subjects (which is what steaming operates on) is farcical. Setting allows the teaching to be tailored to the academic ability of the pupils.
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
So that would be 1 in my home town. Which currently has 1.
On schools, I was at an academy last night, as they rent out various shared learning spaces and halls for sports, community and business use, and it was so much flashier than the type of school I went to it took my breath away. Sleek, modern, huge, there were iMacs and other expensive equipment everywhere and I felt like a peasant just being there.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
Sounds expensive. Four chemistry labs rather than one. Not sure the money is there for that.
Obviously for certain facilities these would be shared, as for sports grounds.
The thinking is that most large comprehensives are vast inhuman factories were most children are simply not known by the head. Human relationships work on a maximum scale of 150-200 contacts per person, so in these schools the teachers and head would know every child personally. Just like the parents do.
Didn't realise there was a difference between streaming/setting...
On that note, the Germans had Siztenbleiben[sp], which means that if you fail end of year exams you have to resit that year. Or, at least, they did when I learnt German at school.
Yes, I'm all for setting but very much against streaming. The notion that a pupil is equally good at all subjects (which is what steaming operates on) is farcical. Setting allows the teaching to be tailored to the academic ability of the pupils.
I guess we were streamed in Year 7 as it was our first year in the big school so it kind of makes sense to keep pupils together as they go round the school. And after the first year the school has a better idea of each pupil's ability in the different subjects.
Don't a lot of schools now have 'super-heads', in the sense that several schools are administered by a single figure, with what are essentially deputies on the ground for the specific individual schools? So the, on paper, top person might be responsible for many many thousands of pupils.
The futility of Corbyn in three by elections. Collpasing in Cumbria, not in the game in Cambridgeshire, sweeping up in London Camberwell - where Labour already hold sway.
Green votes are particularly useless replacements for moderate, middle England, Labour ones
No. The Greens are significant in many middle England seats, where the middle-class Guardian/Independent vote is important - where they are irrelevant is Labour northern strongholds. If the Greens hadn't intervened in Broxtowe and say 60% of their supporters had gone Labour (anecdotally likely) we'd have held it in 2010 and the Tory majority would have halved in 2015. The Greens were a growing, existential threat to Labour in middle-class areas and now they aren't - it's one reason I voted Corbyn.
Well, I suppose Corbyn will stop Green voters making a difference to the result in such seats. After all, the Greens don't normally get 15,000 votes, which will be the size of the Tory majority in e.g. Stroud at the next election.
EDIT: and Root is on a positive charge now. If one of these gets out, maybe Bayliss should send in Butler and tell him to have a few free hits, get his confidence back.
Overall, though, the Greens are strongest in places that are already good for Labour. Inner London, and other urban areas with lots of students and public sector workers.
That result of c.80% for Labour and the Greens in Camberwell sort of explains how so many of their blogging and social media residents were so confused by the GE2015 result.
It shows again how much we are Two Nations, divided not by class, but by outlook.
In England, at least, there are probably three: 40% who lean centre-right, 25% who are solidly left and a further 15% who are centrist floaters.
There are a further 20% who couldn't give a toss. The trouble is the 25% shout so loudly they make it seem an even split.
Doesn't the definition of political centre mean that 50% are to the right of it, and 50% are to the left with most clustered around the centre like a bell curve?
Doesn't the political centre change over time? Compare the UK political centre in Attlee's time with now. And it certainly varies between countries. It is a relativist concept.
Yes, but that wouldn't be a useful metric in understanding English views on economics and culture wars: I'm talking about it in terms of values and, of course, there is a lag between voters voting to move that centre-ground and the parties actually reorientating themselves to service it.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
Sounds expensive. Four chemistry labs rather than one. Not sure the money is there for that.
Obviously for certain facilities these would be shared, as for sports grounds.
The thinking is that most large comprehensives are vast inhuman factories were most children are simply not known by the head. Human relationships work on a maximum scale of 150-200 contacts per person, so in these schools the teachers and head would know every child personally. Just like the parents do.
The opposite is happening
'Councils across England are planning a new wave of "super-size" secondary schools of between 12 and 16 form groups for each year, a report says. At least 17 local councils will have these 2,000-plus pupil schools, the Times Educational Supplement found from Freedom of Information requests.'
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
Barking and Dagenham apparently plan to have a school with 3000 pupils to cope with the rise in immigration and overspill from Kent.
So a school with at least 70 teachers to teach them. Assuming a headteacher is in charge of about 15 teachers on average, that means placing 5 head teachers in charge of sections of the school under a super head teacher. Pure "Alice Through the Looking Glass"; or more properly pure Barking in Dagenham.
"The notion that a pupil is equally good at all subjects (which is what steaming operates on)"
Huh?
I went to the local Grammar School in 1960, and at 12/13 we were streamed by subject. For Sciences (proper stuff), I was in the A stream, for languages, I was in the B stream, and for Art, I washed the saucers.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
Sounds expensive. Four chemistry labs rather than one. Not sure the money is there for that.
Obviously for certain facilities these would be shared, as for sports grounds.
The thinking is that most large comprehensives are vast inhuman factories were most children are simply not known by the head. Human relationships work on a maximum scale of 150-200 contacts per person, so in these schools the teachers and head would know every child personally. Just like the parents do.
The opposite is happening
'Councils across England are planning a new wave of "super-size" secondary schools of between 12 and 16 form groups for each year, a report says. At least 17 local councils will have these 2,000-plus pupil schools, the Times Educational Supplement found from Freedom of Information requests.'
A lot of chat on twitter today about a 'tory voter' who confronted Amber Rudd on QT last night on tax credits.
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
This is how the supposedly impartial BBC draws attention to it.
BBC Politics ✔ @BBCPolitics A Tory voter in the audience of the BBC's Question Time launches an impassioned attack on Conservative minister... http://bbc.in/1ZHVN2T
Impartial doesn't mean ignoring the facts of a given situation. If the report of the exchange is accurate then I'm unsure what your complaint is ?
I believe the theory goes that there are endless amounts of facts out there, therefore if someone chooses to mention one inconvenient to you, it is a result of their biases of course. See also Corbynites angry at people mentioning things Corbyn as said (with or without context) as being slurs.
On schools, I was at an academy last night, as they rent out various shared learning spaces and halls for sports, community and business use, and it was so much flashier than the type of school I went to it took my breath away. Sleek, modern, huge, there were iMacs and other expensive equipment everywhere and I felt like a peasant just being there.
And that's where the money goes. Does it improve outcomes?
I had an old inkwell desk, drafty mathsroom but decent (if old) books and excellent teachers and individual support. And my parent paid quite a lot for it.
"The notion that a pupil is equally good at all subjects (which is what steaming operates on)"
Huh?
I went to the local Grammar School in 1960, and at 12/13 we were streamed by subject. For Sciences (proper stuff), I was in the A stream, for languages, I was in the B stream, and for Art, I washed the saucers.
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
Interesting. Tried to look up similar through other sources, fullfact display a nice graph comparing selective and non-selective counties in modern times, showing a somewhat steeper slope in attainment between richer and poorer for selective counties, especially at the poorer end. From the comments I understand the FT article to have looked back at similar studies from a generation ago.
Of course, social mobility comprises much more than decent churn between the poor and the middle or on the variations in academic grades or even university admissions. The end-to-end measure of social mobility is surely from ultimate occupation and pay grade from one generation to the next.
The lack of churn between the middle and the top in the jobs market, especially in the last 20-30 years is where things seem objectively to have been going backwards - entertainment, media and politics being the oft-quoted and analysed bell weathers. And it was this middle to top space at which the old grammar schools purported to slot in.
The emotional attachment to grammars is more towards that end-to-end mobility, and an aspiration to those intangibles like confidence and sense of a right to go anywhere/do anything. In that sense, yes, it is precisely about middle class parents looking to get a private school-type education, but that does not strike me as automatically a bad thing. To say simply that the top end of the British education system is high class academically does not mean there is no problem at the top end of the jobs market, and does not mean that increasing the pool of people who have the wherewithal to access top jobs is a bad idea for those people or for the country.
Feel welcome to debunk further, if I've misunderstood the FT article or if the pay scale benefits of grammar schools have been similarly boiled down.
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
My economics A level teacher was a local Labour councillor. All lessons descended into him ranting on about Thatcher and my good self goading him about barmie Bernie grant, Scragill and hatton etc. The good old 1980s!
The proponents of grammar schools are very keen on anecdote and very hostile to the concrete evidence that in fact they assist neither improving educational standards nor social mobility:
One day someone will conduct an anthropological investigation into just why they are so enthusiastically advocated. My own suspicion is that their most ardent fans are middle class parents looking to get private school-type education at the government's expense for their own kiddies.
In any case, the problems with the British education system are with weaker students rather than stronger students - as the performance of our universities in international comparisons shows, we ultimately educate well at the top end. Reintroducing grammar schools will do precisely nothing to improve the performance of weaker children.
Interesting. Tried to look up similar through other sources, fullfact display a nice graph comparing selective and non-selective counties in modern times, showing a somewhat steeper slope in attainment between richer and poorer for selective counties, especially at the poorer end. From the comments I understand the FT article to have looked back at similar studies from a generation ago.
Of course, social mobility comprises much more than decent churn between the poor and the middle or on the variations in academic grades or even university admissions. The end-to-end measure of social mobility is surely from ultimate occupation and pay grade from one generation to the next.
The lack of churn between the middle and the top in the jobs market, especially in the last 20-30 years is where things seem objectively to have been going backwards - entertainment, media and politics being the oft-quoted and analysed bell weathers. And it was this middle to top space at which the old grammar schools purported to slot in.
The emotional attachment to grammars is more towards that end-to-end mobility, and an aspiration to those intangibles like confidence and sense of a right to go anywhere/do anything. In that sense, yes, it is precisely about middle class parents looking to get a private school-type education, but that does not strike me as automatically a bad thing. To say simply that the top end of the British education system is high class academically does not mean there is no problem at the top end of the jobs market, and does not mean that increasing the pool of people who have the wherewithal to access top jobs is a bad idea for those people or for the country.
Feel welcome to debunk further, if I've misunderstood the FT article or if the pay scale benefits of grammar schools have been similarly boiled down.
"The notion that a pupil is equally good at all subjects (which is what steaming operates on)"
Huh?
I went to the local Grammar School in 1960, and at 12/13 we were streamed by subject. For Sciences (proper stuff), I was in the A stream, for languages, I was in the B stream, and for Art, I washed the saucers.
That's setting.
Yes correct. However, if the selection is based primarily on tests in Verbal and non-verbal reasoning there is a strong correlation between high scores in the former and in virtually all academic subjects, as well as sport. I taught at a top Kent Grammar near London for nearly 20 years as Deputy head and observed this pattern repeatedly. Incidentally as the school expanded - and continues to do so - the intake drew heavily on aspirational parents from south London and always had relatively high numbers from all the ethnic groups who live there as well as most from very modest incomes. Indeed the school was very effective as an alternative to the previously flourishing private offerings in south London. Ironic.
Interesting that it was Crosland who hated the Grammars - a posh, public school boy.
They had their faults; they did have a lot of middle class kids (at my primary only two out of my class passed the 11- plus) and they tried to ape public schools. But the discipline was the issue. The local secondary which my brother went to was notorious for ill-discipline.
On schools, I was at an academy last night, as they rent out various shared learning spaces and halls for sports, community and business use, and it was so much flashier than the type of school I went to it took my breath away. Sleek, modern, huge, there were iMacs and other expensive equipment everywhere and I felt like a peasant just being there.
And that's where the money goes. Does it improve outcomes?
I had an old inkwell desk, drafty mathsroom but decent (if old) books and excellent teachers and individual support. And my parent paid quite a lot for it.
Mr. CD13, easier than taking responsibility [not unlike Red Bull bitching at everyone else instead of taking responsibility for the idiocy of burning bridges with an engine supplier without having a successor lined up].
On schools, I was at an academy last night, as they rent out various shared learning spaces and halls for sports, community and business use, and it was so much flashier than the type of school I went to it took my breath away. Sleek, modern, huge, there were iMacs and other expensive equipment everywhere and I felt like a peasant just being there.
And that's where the money goes. Does it improve outcomes?
I had an old inkwell desk, drafty mathsroom but decent (if old) books and excellent teachers and individual support. And my parent paid quite a lot for it.
It's the quality of the teaching that matters.
Politicians aren't interested in outcome, they don't hang around long enough to see the results, look at the NHS. All that matters is that they can stand up and boast about how much money has been spent.
As it happens, I went to look at a grammar school Sixth Form with my elder daughter last night. Talking to one of the pupils already there, I was surprised to hear that she commuted from Hastings to Tonbridge every day - and was not the only one to do so. That's a round trip of 120 miles to get to school and back each day.
A child's academic attainment is principally driven be their parents - that is the overwhelming factor.
Parents focused on academic attainment both participate more in their children's education both inside and outside of school hours (by applying pressure to teachers and by offering additional support to the child) and also participate in fund raising for their child's schools. This gives schools with concentrations of pushy parents a leg up as they have additional funds over a school that is receiving identical LEA funding.
To help the children and schools at the bottom it is imperative to spread the pushy parents around schools rather than concentrating them in isolated institutions.
"A child's academic attainment is principally driven be their parents - that is the overwhelming factor. "
That's my view, although I would widen it to family as well as parents. I did very well in subjects that my parents, siblings, and wider family were interested in, and less well in ones that I was not exposed to at home (e.g. French). This was not tutoring: it was just being exposed to the subjects, sometimes from an early age.
Given this, and given the fact we have had several generations with little or no improvement in illiteracy and innumeracy levels at the bottom end, we should be concentrating more on improving parenting? Trying to ensure that children whose parents lack the necessary parenting skills are helped, either directly or through teaching their parents those skills?
"The notion that a pupil is equally good at all subjects (which is what steaming operates on)"
Huh?
I went to the local Grammar School in 1960, and at 12/13 we were streamed by subject. For Sciences (proper stuff), I was in the A stream, for languages, I was in the B stream, and for Art, I washed the saucers.
That's setting.
Yes correct. However, if the selection is based primarily on tests in Verbal and non-verbal reasoning there is a strong correlation between high scores in the former and in virtually all academic subjects, as well as sport. I taught at a top Kent Grammar near London for nearly 20 years as Deputy head and observed this pattern repeatedly. Incidentally as the school expanded - and continues to do so - the intake drew heavily on aspirational parents from south London and always had relatively high numbers from all the ethnic groups who live there as well as most from very modest incomes. Indeed the school was very effective as an alternative to the previously flourishing private offerings in south London. Ironic.
I've got a 1st and a PhD in Software Engineering. I got a C in English in my Highers and a 3 (C equivalent) in German in my Standard Grades so I am innately skeptical (although I appreciate I could be an outlier) of claims of all round academic ability.
As it happens, I went to look at a grammar school Sixth Form with my elder daughter last night. Talking to one of the pupils already there, I was surprised to hear that she commuted from Hastings to Tonbridge every day - and was not the only one to do so. That's a round trip of 120 miles to get to school and back each day.
I was writing a short story about monarchy versus democracy [comedy, unreleased] a little while ago when a line I wrote in mirth struck me as true. The economy (and other matters) aren't run according to what is best for the nation so much as what is popular, or perceived to be good for the country. Perception matters more than reality in democratic-decision making (cf the pasty tax).
Of course, once we governed by Enormo-Haddock Voting and the House of Octo-Lemurs, all matters shall be judged prudently.
On schools, I was at an academy last night, as they rent out various shared learning spaces and halls for sports, community and business use, and it was so much flashier than the type of school I went to it took my breath away. Sleek, modern, huge, there were iMacs and other expensive equipment everywhere and I felt like a peasant just being there.
And that's where the money goes. Does it improve outcomes?
I had an old inkwell desk, drafty mathsroom but decent (if old) books and excellent teachers and individual support. And my parent paid quite a lot for it.
It's the quality of the teaching that matters.
Had a great education at a comprehensive. We were taught to succeed without the extra help that other kids required. If anything we felt sorry for them. We didn't cost our parents a penny.
On schools, I was at an academy last night, as they rent out various shared learning spaces and halls for sports, community and business use, and it was so much flashier than the type of school I went to it took my breath away. Sleek, modern, huge, there were iMacs and other expensive equipment everywhere and I felt like a peasant just being there.
And that's where the money goes. Does it improve outcomes?
I had an old inkwell desk, drafty mathsroom but decent (if old) books and excellent teachers and individual support. And my parent paid quite a lot for it.
It's the quality of the teaching that matters.
Politicians aren't interested in outcome, they don't hang around long enough to see the results, look at the NHS. All that matters is that they can stand up and boast about how much money has been spent.
I think that's a bit unfair. I certainly think that Blair cared about results in education, even if I don't necessarily agree with the policies his government implemented to improve those results.
Likewise, I have no doubt that politicians of all stripes care about outcomes in the NHS.
It's just hard to achieve the good outcomes they wish, and devilishly hard to do that within a budget, and almost impossible when you are forced to concentrate on five-year terms whilst looking over your shoulder to antique ideologies.
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
My economics A level teacher was a local Labour councillor. All lessons descended into him ranting on about Thatcher and my good self goading him about barmie Bernie grant, Scragill and hatton etc. The good old 1980s!
My GCSE History teacher at the comp spent from Sept to January teaching us about China and Russia's modern history. He was very enthused about Trotsky, Stalin etc etc. We then got lucky and he left and in his place was a recently retired ex RAF chap in his first teaching post in his 50s. He asked us on day 1 what had been learning. At the answers he just said "oh" and then spent the rest of the lesson getting to know us. The next lesson he started from the first part of the actual syllabus. China and Russia's history were (we later learned) not part of it..... How he got so many to pass the exam 16 months later, was a miracle down to him.
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
I have two friends who have moved from other careers into teaching in the last five years. Both have gone from being rather grumpily and apolitically right-of-centre to being serious lefties - one swung from Tory to Green between 2010 and 2015. What do they do to them at teacher training college?
One of my ideas for a policy when taking the Ukip PPC test was to take the worst performing comprehensive in the poorest part of each town postcode wise and make it a Grammar school.
The best comprehensives are those that have the fewest free school meal kids, those where the most expensive houses are.., and there's a reason why the houses are more expensive... The schools are good. So let these top comps remain comps, let the rich kids continue to go there and let the crappy ones become grammar schools
I was writing a short story about monarchy versus democracy [comedy, unreleased] a little while ago when a line I wrote in mirth struck me as true. The economy (and other matters) aren't run according to what is best for the nation so much as what is popular, or perceived to be good for the country. Perception matters more than reality in democratic-decision making (cf the pasty tax).
Of course, once we governed by Enormo-Haddock Voting and the House of Octo-Lemurs, all matters shall be judged prudently.
Quite so MD.
Politicians don't do what's best for the country they do what's best for the people that vote for them.
On schools, I was at an academy last night, as they rent out various shared learning spaces and halls for sports, community and business use, and it was so much flashier than the type of school I went to it took my breath away. Sleek, modern, huge, there were iMacs and other expensive equipment everywhere and I felt like a peasant just being there.
And that's where the money goes. Does it improve outcomes?
I had an old inkwell desk, drafty mathsroom but decent (if old) books and excellent teachers and individual support. And my parent paid quite a lot for it.
It's the quality of the teaching that matters.
Politicians aren't interested in outcome, they don't hang around long enough to see the results, look at the NHS. All that matters is that they can stand up and boast about how much money has been spent.
I think that's a bit unfair. I certainly think that Blair cared about results in education, even if I don't necessarily agree with the policies his government implemented to improve those results.
Likewise, I have no doubt that politicians of all stripes care about outcomes in the NHS.
It's just hard to achieve the good outcomes they wish, and devilishly hard to do that within a budget, and almost impossible when you are forced to concentrate on five-year terms whilst looking over your shoulder to antique ideologies.
Blair cared so much about education he made exams easier and introduced tuition fees, along with the ridiculous target of 50% going to uni.
One of my ideas for a policy when taking the Ukip PPC test was to take the worst performing comprehensive in the poorest part of each town postcode wise and make it a Grammar school.
The best comprehensives are those that have the fewest free school meal kids, those where the most expensive houses are.., and there's a reason why the houses are more expensive... The schools are good. So let these top comps remain comps, let the rich kids continue to go there and let the crappy ones become grammar schools
It would also have the side effect of raising house prices in poor areas
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
I have two friends who have moved from other careers into teaching in the last five years. Both have gone from being rather grumpily and apolitically right-of-centre to being serious lefties - one swung from Tory to Green between 2010 and 2015. What do they do to them at teacher training college?
A close friend of mine - and party member - did the same and moved from Citigroup to doing maths teaching.
He rapidly became anti-Gove, although is still a Tory. Apparently the problem was that Gove would dump huge changes on teachers at very short notice, overwork them and not listen to any feedback.
One of my ideas for a policy when taking the Ukip PPC test was to take the worst performing comprehensive in the poorest part of each town postcode wise and make it a Grammar school.
The best comprehensives are those that have the fewest free school meal kids, those where the most expensive houses are.., and there's a reason why the houses are more expensive... The schools are good. So let these top comps remain comps, let the rich kids continue to go there and let the crappy ones become grammar schools
It would also have the side effect of raising house prices in poor areas
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
I have two friends who have moved from other careers into teaching in the last five years. Both have gone from being rather grumpily and apolitically right-of-centre to being serious lefties - one swung from Tory to Green between 2010 and 2015. What do they do to them at teacher training college?
A close friend of mine - and party member - did the same and moved from Citigroup to doing maths teaching.
He rapidly became anti-Gove, although is still a Tory. Apparently the problem was that Gove would dump huge changes on teachers at very short notice, overwork them and not listen to any feedback.
Political micromanagement of education is a sickness not exclusive to the Tories. It drives teachers up the wall whoever is in power.
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
My economics A level teacher was a local Labour councillor. All lessons descended into him ranting on about Thatcher and my good self goading him about barmie Bernie grant, Scragill and hatton etc. The good old 1980s!
My politics teacher was a Glaswegian socialist. Fortunately, she was a consumate professional and excellent teacher and kept her politics to herself.
She encouraged me to explore my views, even when I was in my purest free-market and libertarian phase.
One of my ideas for a policy when taking the Ukip PPC test was to take the worst performing comprehensive in the poorest part of each town postcode wise and make it a Grammar school.
The best comprehensives are those that have the fewest free school meal kids, those where the most expensive houses are.., and there's a reason why the houses are more expensive... The schools are good. So let these top comps remain comps, let the rich kids continue to go there and let the crappy ones become grammar schools
It would also have the side effect of raising house prices in poor areas
Not sure the house price rise is a good thing
They would fall in the areas nr the good comps to compensate I would think?
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
My ex-girlfriend (before I met my wife) did her PGCE placement in a multi-ethnic inner-city state school in Southampton. One of the history lessons was titled 'there ain't no black in the union jack'
She told me the teacher had asked the class, 'what do we call the Elizabethans?'
"Racists", they replied.
Teachers are to the Left of the general public, but a fair-sized minority are Conservative or UKIP. There are schools where they're virtually all hard left, but I wouldn't characterise them as a whole in that way.
The TES had a Yougov survey of teachers in April which had Lab 44%, Con 29%, Lib Dem 10%, UKIP 7%, Green 6%.
A lot of chat on twitter today about a 'tory voter' who confronted Amber Rudd on QT last night on tax credits.
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
Surely if you're going to vote on self interest, unless you're a pensioner then you logically should generally go with Labour if you're taking from the 'benefits' denoted section of the Gov't pie ?
Tax dodgers would not be Labour , much better option for them
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
I have two friends who have moved from other careers into teaching in the last five years. Both have gone from being rather grumpily and apolitically right-of-centre to being serious lefties - one swung from Tory to Green between 2010 and 2015. What do they do to them at teacher training college?
A close friend of mine - and party member - did the same and moved from Citigroup to doing maths teaching.
He rapidly became anti-Gove, although is still a Tory. Apparently the problem was that Gove would dump huge changes on teachers at very short notice, overwork them and not listen to any feedback.
Political micromanagement of education is a sickness not exclusive to the Tories. It drives teachers up the wall whoever is in power.
That's true, but I think part of the problem is the sheer obstructiveness of the NUT between the teachers and the government.
It means the government tries to find a way round, whereas if they engaged directly with the teachers they might get better colloboration and results.
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
My ex-girlfriend (before I met my wife) did her PGCE placement in a multi-ethnic inner-city state school in Southampton. One of the history lessons was titled 'there ain't no black in the union jack'
She told me the teacher had asked the class, 'what do we call the Elizabethans?'
"Racists", they replied.
Teachers are to the Left of the general public, but a fair-sized minority are Conservative or UKIP. There are schools where they're virtually all hard left, but I wouldn't characterise them as a whole in that way.
University workers, OTOH, are largely Corbynite.
My experience has been the other way round, but fair enough.
One of my ideas for a policy when taking the Ukip PPC test was to take the worst performing comprehensive in the poorest part of each town postcode wise and make it a Grammar school.
The best comprehensives are those that have the fewest free school meal kids, those where the most expensive houses are.., and there's a reason why the houses are more expensive... The schools are good. So let these top comps remain comps, let the rich kids continue to go there and let the crappy ones become grammar schools
It would also have the side effect of raising house prices in poor areas
Where do the kids from those areas who wouldn't get into the grammar schools go? (not a criticism, a genuine question)
I've just seen the progs about Chinese teachers attempting to teach for a month in a top UK academy.
I was just appalled at the attitude of the kids, the larking about, rudeness, smart arse antics and all the wasted time on *child centered let's discuss the lesson* rather than learn something.
The Chinese teachers despite all their cultural issues still managed to get substantially better scores in maths and sciences than the existing staff. The British teachers seemed disappointed that sit-there-and-learn actually worked more effectively.
I'd be ashamed if a child of mine behaved like these ones did.
Mr. 30, probably told this story before, but my school, briefly, had the cunning plan of putting swots and slackers next to one another, so the slackers might learn the diligent ways of the swots.
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
My economics A level teacher was a local Labour councillor. All lessons descended into him ranting on about Thatcher and my good self goading him about barmie Bernie grant, Scragill and hatton etc. The good old 1980s!
My politics teacher was a Glaswegian socialist. Fortunately, she was a consumate professional and excellent teacher and kept her politics to herself.
She encouraged me to explore my views, even when I was in my purest free-market and libertarian phase.
Lots of Tories taught at my school. One had been once been John Major's agent, the sort of useless, grey suited, corporate Tory that puts you off conservatism for life.
On schools, I was at an academy last night, as they rent out various shared learning spaces and halls for sports, community and business use, and it was so much flashier than the type of school I went to it took my breath away. Sleek, modern, huge, there were iMacs and other expensive equipment everywhere and I felt like a peasant just being there.
And that's where the money goes. Does it improve outcomes?
I had an old inkwell desk, drafty mathsroom but decent (if old) books and excellent teachers and individual support. And my parent paid quite a lot for it.
It's the quality of the teaching that matters.
Politicians aren't interested in outcome, they don't hang around long enough to see the results, look at the NHS. All that matters is that they can stand up and boast about how much money has been spent.
I think that's a bit unfair. I certainly think that Blair cared about results in education, even if I don't necessarily agree with the policies his government implemented to improve those results.
Likewise, I have no doubt that politicians of all stripes care about outcomes in the NHS.
It's just hard to achieve the good outcomes they wish, and devilishly hard to do that within a budget, and almost impossible when you are forced to concentrate on five-year terms whilst looking over your shoulder to antique ideologies.
Blair cared so much about education he made exams easier and introduced tuition fees, along with the ridiculous target of 50% going to uni.
I agree that the 50% to uni target was imbecilic. But I was mainly talking about school education, and whilst I didn't (and don't) agree with much of what New Labour did wrt schools, I have little doubt that they wanted children to leave school with an improved education.
One of my ideas for a policy when taking the Ukip PPC test was to take the worst performing comprehensive in the poorest part of each town postcode wise and make it a Grammar school.
The best comprehensives are those that have the fewest free school meal kids, those where the most expensive houses are.., and there's a reason why the houses are more expensive... The schools are good. So let these top comps remain comps, let the rich kids continue to go there and let the crappy ones become grammar schools
It would also have the side effect of raising house prices in poor areas
Where do the kids from those areas who wouldn't get into the grammar schools go? (not a criticism, a genuine question)
I guess to the better achieving comprehensives in the nicer areas? There would be places there vacated by those going to the grammar.. It would be in the same town so wouldn't affect them much
So the poor kids would either hi to a grammar or a better comp, and the richer kids would go to the existing good comp or a grammar... And the poor kids parents property would be worth more & the area would improve
A piece of anecdata: just had a pleasant lady from the council knock on our front door to check the voter registration data for this property.
South Cambs certainly seem proactive on voter registration.
When we apologised for not having filled out the form yet (because we, ahem, lost it), she smiled and said: "If everyone did it I wouldn't have a job."
A lot of chat on twitter today about a 'tory voter' who confronted Amber Rudd on QT last night on tax credits.
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
Surely if you're going to vote on self interest, unless you're a pensioner then you logically should generally go with Labour if you're taking from the 'benefits' denoted section of the Gov't pie ?
Tax dodgers would not be Labour , much better option for them
As you may have gathered, that did not occur. Au contraire, an idiot Physics teacher thought I'd taken up smoking, because the slacker beside me had a blazer that stank of cigarettes.
One was not amused.
Most British state school teachers are as Corbynite as they get.
Evidence? We know that educated people tend to be slightly more to the left than average. Beyond that I can't see how you can make that claim.
Virtually every teacher I've ever met - my ex-girlfriend's colleagues, her friends who were teachers and friends of mine who are teachers, and friends of friends. One of whom lost his temper when i challenged him that the Telegraph was a fascist newspaper.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
I have two friends who have moved from other careers into teaching in the last five years. Both have gone from being rather grumpily and apolitically right-of-centre to being serious lefties - one swung from Tory to Green between 2010 and 2015. What do they do to them at teacher training college?
A close friend of mine - and party member - did the same and moved from Citigroup to doing maths teaching.
He rapidly became anti-Gove, although is still a Tory. Apparently the problem was that Gove would dump huge changes on teachers at very short notice, overwork them and not listen to any feedback.
In a funny way it doesn't seem that different to my old school form tutor who voted Tory in '97 and became rapidly annoyed by the new Labour government announcing all kinds of changes which didn't seem to have been properly thought through. Politically minded people have a tendency to think that with public servants it's all about ideology. It isn't. It's more often than not about practicality. I don't see a great deal of difference between teachers moaning about Gove and employees complaining about their managers.
On Nick Palmer's point about Corbyn and the Greens, I have to say this 2015 Green voter has not yet been devoured by Corbynmania. I voted Green as a vaguely left of centre protest vote in a safe Labour seat. Miliband's refusal to embrace electoral reform and condemn phone hacking at the Mirror (over which he should have felt vindicated) was symbolic of a cultural malaise in the Labour party that I don't see Corbyn fixing at the moment.
A piece of anecdata: just had a pleasant lady from the council knock on our front door to check the voter registration data for this property.
South Cambs certainly seem proactive on voter registration.
When we apologised for not having filled out the form yet (because we, ahem, lost it), she smiled and said: "If everyone did it I wouldn't have a job."
South Oxfordshire ditto. We are a two man job creation scheme.
A lot of chat on twitter today about a 'tory voter' who confronted Amber Rudd on QT last night on tax credits.
Them tax credit cuts are going to hammer the tories, apparently
Isn't everyone to the right of Corbyn a Tory now?
Does anyone actually have a worked example of how someone working for as long as they can get free childcare will be affected? My impression (from afar, admittedly) is that there's lots of changes happening in the next couple of years and lots that have happened in the last few with regard to personal allowances, minimum wage, working hours limits, childcare provision and tax credits. Unemployment is also well down and productivity rising.
How many people will actually be badly worse off by the changes in the round, or are people either looking at the tax credits change in isolation or focussing on the 1% edge case who for example continues to work 16 hours a week when this hard limit no longer exists..?
Good afternoon all. We lack quantitative data at present. Anecdotes are not data. I assume there's no doubt that people (how many?) will be worse off, but as Sandpit points out, there are so many changes coming along, its genuinely hard to assess the impact of the policy change.
We need more charts and tables. As it stands, people are cherry-picking examples to further their political points.
Note that I am not defending Osborne here. I'm firmly of the view that the welfare state should be helping the poor and needy. If he's penalising the poor, then it's enormo-haddock time.
Rubbish. The current operates on wealth through house price selection, and private tutoring costs.
There's no reason why most towns and suburbs couldn't have a variety of schools (I'm talking a choice of 5-8, not just 1 or 2) within walking distance of 80+% of most people's homes, if the money followed the child.
It's a myth that poor parents are not able to understand their child's needs and choose what's best for their children.
There is one school in my village.
There are two schools 7 miles away. There is a public bus, £3 one way, £30 a week. The other option is 15 miles away, no bus.
To vote with your feet is a nice idea, but in that context is not cost free and beyond the means of many.
Yes, we need more and smaller schools. In Steve Hilton's excellent new book "More Human" he goes further and talks about each town having *dozens* of schools of 150-200 pupils each.
Barking and Dagenham apparently plan to have a school with 3000 pupils to cope with the rise in immigration and overspill from Kent.
So a school with at least 70 teachers to teach them. Assuming a headteacher is in charge of about 15 teachers on average, that means placing 5 head teachers in charge of sections of the school under a super head teacher. Pure "Alice Through the Looking Glass"; or more properly pure Barking in Dagenham.
@MikeK Your figures are not correct, I am afraid. A headteacher would normally manage about 80 staff. However, for 3000 pupils you would probably have around 160 teachers (3000/70 gives 43:1, which is obviously far too high - it has to be at most 30:1 on average, more usually in a secondary school about 20:1). That might be split into five 'micro-schools' each with a senior deputy head under an overall Head to manage them. However, that model didn't work terribly well in one school I worked in where they tried it - the indiscipline was a nightmare because it was always somebody else's responsibility to deal with it.
I am baffled by the idea that a Head would be in charge of a mere fifteen teachers. At primary school, perhaps, but not at secondary, which is what this school would be.
Comments
Doesn't the political centre change over time? Compare the UK political centre in Attlee's time with now. And it certainly varies between countries. It is a relativist concept.
It reminds me a bit of dogs. It's not only to the owner's advantage to have a master-pet relationship, rather than letting the hound do whatever it likes. In the same way, children benefit from boundaries, rules and hierarchy.
Credit to my school, though, as the mistaken approach did not persist.
The ICC should also commission an all-stars timeless test for this pitch - go all out and try to make some sort of record setting event to make a virtue of it. Cook'd be a shoo-in for one of the teams, and I'm sure Chanderpaul and Dravid could be tempted out of retirement for it as well. Just a question of which bowlers would have to donate their bodies for the 4 weeks of the game.
On the grammar argument lots of opponents quote research - much of the research is conducted by social scientists who are implacably opposed to selection. Statistics tell some people what they want to know.
I enjoy new comedy.The hit of the Autumn has been Carry on Corbyn. It is of course a strictly amateur production.It features some new stars of the future -Ronald McDonnell, Diane Abbott(here without Costello) and Richard Burgon. As another critic has observed - is there no start to their talents?
Some in the three pound seats appear to delight at the novelty of the show. I worry that it may not have the staying power to get through to Christmas. The production company say that it will run for 54 months.For a farce that seems like an eternity to me. Even after one month the script is tired and the jokes begin to pall.
If I were you I would catch it before it closes for good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34551155
And my own experience in the state system during sixth-form where they almost all were, the one who was not kept his mouth shut. Except to me.
Or look at how many are NUT members or read the guardian.
In that case we had setting, not streaming. It does seem a stupid way to operate.
Mr. Felix, I wonder if psychopaths count as cream, scum, or both?
The thinking is that most large comprehensives are vast inhuman factories were most children are simply not known by the head. Human relationships work on a maximum scale of 150-200 contacts per person, so in these schools the teachers and head would know every child personally. Just like the parents do.
'Councils across England are planning a new wave of "super-size" secondary schools of between 12 and 16 form groups for each year, a report says.
At least 17 local councils will have these 2,000-plus pupil schools, the Times Educational Supplement found from Freedom of Information requests.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34486006
"The notion that a pupil is equally good at all subjects (which is what steaming operates on)"
Huh?
I went to the local Grammar School in 1960, and at 12/13 we were streamed by subject. For Sciences (proper stuff), I was in the A stream, for languages, I was in the B stream, and for Art, I washed the saucers.
I had an old inkwell desk, drafty mathsroom but decent (if old) books and excellent teachers and individual support. And my parent paid quite a lot for it.
It's the quality of the teaching that matters.
I was horrified at how modern they were.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 13, they're also badger constructs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11934689/Tom-Watson-had-the-police-in-his-thrall-that-is-the-real-scandal.html
Apologies if already posted - but this is really good. Thank heavens no-one in Labour is listening
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/grammar_schools_and_social_mobility-29269
Of course, social mobility comprises much more than decent churn between the poor and the middle or on the variations in academic grades or even university admissions. The end-to-end measure of social mobility is surely from ultimate occupation and pay grade from one generation to the next.
The lack of churn between the middle and the top in the jobs market, especially in the last 20-30 years is where things seem objectively to have been going backwards - entertainment, media and politics being the oft-quoted and analysed bell weathers. And it was this middle to top space at which the old grammar schools purported to slot in.
The emotional attachment to grammars is more towards that end-to-end mobility, and an aspiration to those intangibles like confidence and sense of a right to go anywhere/do anything. In that sense, yes, it is precisely about middle class parents looking to get a private school-type education, but that does not strike me as automatically a bad thing. To say simply that the top end of the British education system is high class academically does not mean there is no problem at the top end of the jobs market, and does not mean that increasing the pool of people who have the wherewithal to access top jobs is a bad idea for those people or for the country.
Feel welcome to debunk further, if I've misunderstood the FT article or if the pay scale benefits of grammar schools have been similarly boiled down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34547523
They had their faults; they did have a lot of middle class kids (at my primary only two out of my class passed the 11- plus) and they tried to ape public schools. But the discipline was the issue. The local secondary which my brother went to was notorious for ill-discipline.
Can you blame the Grammar for that?
That's my view, although I would widen it to family as well as parents. I did very well in subjects that my parents, siblings, and wider family were interested in, and less well in ones that I was not exposed to at home (e.g. French). This was not tutoring: it was just being exposed to the subjects, sometimes from an early age.
Given this, and given the fact we have had several generations with little or no improvement in illiteracy and innumeracy levels at the bottom end, we should be concentrating more on improving parenting? Trying to ensure that children whose parents lack the necessary parenting skills are helped, either directly or through teaching their parents those skills?
In fact, a but like the troubled families scheme?
I was almost on the doorstep at two bus rides away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-34538681
I was writing a short story about monarchy versus democracy [comedy, unreleased] a little while ago when a line I wrote in mirth struck me as true. The economy (and other matters) aren't run according to what is best for the nation so much as what is popular, or perceived to be good for the country. Perception matters more than reality in democratic-decision making (cf the pasty tax).
Of course, once we governed by Enormo-Haddock Voting and the House of Octo-Lemurs, all matters shall be judged prudently.
Likewise, I have no doubt that politicians of all stripes care about outcomes in the NHS.
It's just hard to achieve the good outcomes they wish, and devilishly hard to do that within a budget, and almost impossible when you are forced to concentrate on five-year terms whilst looking over your shoulder to antique ideologies.
The best comprehensives are those that have the fewest free school meal kids, those where the most expensive houses are.., and there's a reason why the houses are more expensive... The schools are good. So let these top comps remain comps, let the rich kids continue to go there and let the crappy ones become grammar schools
Politicians don't do what's best for the country they do what's best for the people that vote for them.
He rapidly became anti-Gove, although is still a Tory. Apparently the problem was that Gove would dump huge changes on teachers at very short notice, overwork them and not listen to any feedback.
She encouraged me to explore my views, even when I was in my purest free-market and libertarian phase.
The TES had a Yougov survey of teachers in April which had Lab 44%, Con 29%, Lib Dem 10%, UKIP 7%, Green 6%.
University workers, OTOH, are largely Corbynite.
It means the government tries to find a way round, whereas if they engaged directly with the teachers they might get better colloboration and results.
So the poor kids would either hi to a grammar or a better comp, and the richer kids would go to the existing good comp or a grammar... And the poor kids parents property would be worth more & the area would improve
A piece of anecdata: just had a pleasant lady from the council knock on our front door to check the voter registration data for this property.
South Cambs certainly seem proactive on voter registration.
When we apologised for not having filled out the form yet (because we, ahem, lost it), she smiled and said: "If everyone did it I wouldn't have a job."
2 x new thread
On Nick Palmer's point about Corbyn and the Greens, I have to say this 2015 Green voter has not yet been devoured by Corbynmania. I voted Green as a vaguely left of centre protest vote in a safe Labour seat. Miliband's refusal to embrace electoral reform and condemn phone hacking at the Mirror (over which he should have felt vindicated) was symbolic of a cultural malaise in the Labour party that I don't see Corbyn fixing at the moment.
We need more charts and tables. As it stands, people are cherry-picking examples to further their political points.
Note that I am not defending Osborne here. I'm firmly of the view that the welfare state should be helping the poor and needy. If he's penalising the poor, then it's enormo-haddock time.
I am baffled by the idea that a Head would be in charge of a mere fifteen teachers. At primary school, perhaps, but not at secondary, which is what this school would be.