Mr. Stodge, what's happening is just the same money currently being given to local councils is perhaps to be given to local homeowners instead. Seems fair enough to me.
If anyone objects and refuses, I wish it to be known I am willing to take £13,000 in their place.
Gave up my FT sub a few months ago after realising I was only reading those articles written by my journo mate on the paper, Tim Harford and Lucy Kellaway.
Killer for me is that good comps are far easier to game entrance to through middle class wealth rather than child potential - it's all about house prices. This should not be an issue that affects education in this country.
Not been around for a few days as one of my closest mates was getting married in Cambridge,
Never been prouder to be a member of the Tory Party than when I woke up yesterday to news that the new Grammar schools ban may be repealed. I owe an awful lot to my local state grammar, and amongst my peer group are some very successful friends from very modest backgrounds that similarly attribute much of their success to being fortunate enough to grow up in Dorset - where there are still several very good grammars.
It is also VERY good politics - I'm reading that between 7-8 out of 10 of the general public support them. Immediate response from Lib Dem leadership and Labour figures suggesting they'll use the Lords to block any such legislation probably means another 2-4% in the opinion polls for May's eminently sensible and centrist Tories.
Policies that are good, popular and highlight the problems with the opposition parties are the bedrock of good government. Well done Ma'am; very well done.
It's a double-edged sword: how many of the public back more secondary moderns?
The reality is that the original grammars were smaller than most secondary schools are these days. The better solution is to have grammar-like streams within secondary schools, which also makes moving from one stream to the other easier and avoids the perception problems that sec mods have.
I went to a 50’s grammar school. Divisive and elitist.
Was that the school or the society it existed within? 1950s England, while quite socially mobile, was a horribly class-riven place.
As a poor WWC child, I went to a grammar school and it set me up for life. The exam question is: is it worth the opportunity cost for others?
It's not clear to me how much demand there is for more grammar schools. However, by inclination I'm a fan of 'let a thousand flowers bloom'. Let there be no ban.
It does seem daft that there's a ban on new grammars while existing ones can remain. Letting it be a local decision would have been an easy solution ten years ago when LEAs still largely ran everything. Not so sure how well it'd work now: any new policy would presumably have to enable academies and free-schools to set up as, or convert to, selective - and that's going to be even more controversial than the policy in principle.
Not been around for a few days as one of my closest mates was getting married in Cambridge,
Never been prouder to be a member of the Tory Party than when I woke up yesterday to news that the new Grammar schools ban may be repealed. I owe an awful lot to my local state grammar, and amongst my peer group are some very successful friends from very modest backgrounds that similarly attribute much of their success to being fortunate enough to grow up in Dorset - where there are still several very good grammars.
It is also VERY good politics - I'm reading that between 7-8 out of 10 of the general public support them. Immediate response from Lib Dem leadership and Labour figures suggesting they'll use the Lords to block any such legislation probably means another 2-4% in the opinion polls for May's eminently sensible and centrist Tories.
Policies that are good, popular and highlight the problems with the opposition parties are the bedrock of good government. Well done Ma'am; very well done.
It's a double-edged sword: how many of the public back more secondary moderns?
The reality is that the original grammars were smaller than most secondary schools are these days. The better solution is to have grammar-like streams within secondary schools, which also makes moving from one stream to the other easier and avoids the perception problems that sec mods have.
I went to a 50’s grammar school. Divisive and elitist.
Was that the school or the society it existed within? 1950s England, while quite socially mobile, was a horribly class-riven place.
The exam question is: is it worth the opportunity cost for others?
It has been extensively shown to not be, hence Cameron's jettisoning of it 10 years ago and his emphasis on Gove's educational reforms.
I haven't seen the data as I really have no skin in this game. I went to a state grammar. My late wife went to Cheltenham Ladies. We sent our kids to the local Haberdashers. I do think there needs to be more emphasis on early years + good parenting, but that's just my gut instinct.
There is no 'data' in the sense of one set of undeniable empirical evidence, despite what some people might suggest. There are a fair few studies that purport to show certain things, most of which are set up to show those things.
As someone who has written a few reports of this kind, I can tell you 'evidence based' policy making is more accurately described as 'please find us some evidence for this policy which we want to accept/reject'. If you don't, someone else will.
Not been around for a few days as one of my closest mates was getting married in Cambridge,
Never been prouder to be a member of the Tory Party than when I woke up yesterday to news that the new Grammar schools ban may be repealed. I owe an awful lot to my local state grammar, and amongst my peer group are some very successful friends from very modest backgrounds that similarly attribute much of their success to being fortunate enough to grow up in Dorset - where there are still several very good grammars.
It is also VERY good politics - I'm reading that between 7-8 out of 10 of the general public support them. Immediate response from Lib Dem leadership and Labour figures suggesting they'll use the Lords to block any such legislation probably means another 2-4% in the opinion polls for May's eminently sensible and centrist Tories.
Policies that are good, popular and highlight the problems with the opposition parties are the bedrock of good government. Well done Ma'am; very well done.
It's a double-edged sword: how many of the public back more secondary moderns?
The reality is that the original grammars were smaller than most secondary schools are these days. The better solution is to have grammar-like streams within secondary schools, which also makes moving from one stream to the other easier and avoids the perception problems that sec mods have.
I went to a 50’s grammar school. Divisive and elitist.
Was that the school or the society it existed within? 1950s England, while quite socially mobile, was a horribly class-riven place.
As a poor WWC child, I went to a grammar school and it set me up for life. The exam question is: is it worth the opportunity cost for others?
It's not clear to me how much demand there is for more grammar schools. However, by inclination I'm a fan of 'let a thousand flowers bloom'. Let there be no ban.
Just going to a gramar won't set anyone up for life these days.
Mr. Llama, just a nudge about that e-mail I sent you a little while ago.
Mr. M, it's mildly amusing that grammar schools are simultaneously unpopular as a policy yet over-subscribed as educational institutions.
Mr MD, they're popular as a policy.
And I'm guessing that they're especially popular in the marginal seats of the Midlands...
Islingtonites worried that their little Ruperts and Jemimas are not going to be able to compete when school selection is not linked to house prices or are going to have to mix with those from poorer background with more innate potential are not going to vote Tory anyway...
@Mortimer Then you are missing out on a careful dissection of statistics (from 2013) showing that those areas with grammar schools provide inferior education overall on pretty much any metric:
"As far as we can tell, introducing selection is not good at raising school productivity. In fact, the region [of those counties that have grammar schools] is actually a bit of a laggard."
"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."
Grammar Schools are one of those beloved yet politically impractical Tory shibboleths that bubble up from time to time, perhaps round the time there's a new Tory leader, and the truculent fucks of the backbenches calculate they can be bounced into something they haven't yet plucked up the strength to say no to.
My guess is that May is running this up the flagpole now so she can use the inevitable frontlash as a reason to ignore the backbenches.
Not been around for a few days as one of my closest mates was getting married in Cambridge,
Never been prouder to be a member of the Tory Party than when I woke up yesterday to news that the new Grammar schools ban may be repealed. I owe an awful lot to my local state grammar, and amongst my peer group are some very successful friends from very modest backgrounds that similarly attribute much of their success to being fortunate enough to grow up in Dorset - where there are still several very good grammars.
It is also VERY good politics - I'm reading that between 7-8 out of 10 of the general public support them. Immediate response from Lib Dem leadership and Labour figures suggesting they'll use the Lords to block any such legislation probably means another 2-4% in the opinion polls for May's eminently sensible and centrist Tories.
Policies that are good, popular and highlight the problems with the opposition parties are the bedrock of good government. Well done Ma'am; very well done.
I went to a 50’s grammar school. Divisive and elitist.
Was that the school or the society it existed within? 1950s England, while quite socially mobile, was a horribly class-riven place.
The exam question is: is it worth the opportunity cost for others?
It has been extensively shown to not be, hence Cameron's jettisoning of it 10 years ago and his emphasis on Gove's educational reforms.
I haven't seen the data as I really have no skin in this game. I went to a state grammar. My late wife went to Cheltenham Ladies. We sent our kids to the local Haberdashers. I do think there needs to be more emphasis on early years + good parenting, but that's just my gut instinct.
There is no 'data' in the sense of one set of undeniable empirical evidence, despite what some people might suggest. There are a fair few studies that purport to show certain things, most of which are set up to show those things.
As someone who has written a few reports of this kind, I can tell you 'evidence based' policy making is more accurately described as 'please find us some evidence for this policy which we want to accept/reject'. If you don't, someone else will.
I used to work for the Civil Service, albeit a sexy bit of it, so you don't need to convince me.
However, just as I'm content to let the 'City' remain a black box, so it goes with education. I am but one person. My youngest is 23. It's for others to decide what's best for their children.
I see on the news today that a man has leant out of the window on a Gatwick train to look at something and got decapitated by an oncoming train! Eeew. How can this be possible? All the trains I travel on only have little 'slot' windows at the top which open minimally (just enough to get a bit of breeze). I'm genuinely surprised the H&SE haven't banned 'decapitation friendly' windows ages ago. Que passa?
According to Twitter, some trains have doors with opening windows in what used to be the guards compartment
Inter Railing round Europe many moons ago, when trains still had opening windows, I found it revealing the different attitudes of different countries to leading out of the train window. In Germany it was 'Verboten', in France 'Interdit' while the Italians simply observed it was 'Dangerous'.....
E molto pericoloso sporghese dela fenestra!
Ok, 'Very' dangerous - but still, 'Up to you' - neither 'Verboten' nor 'Interdit'!
The overriding issue in education today is an under achievement of white, working class boys from an early age that widens through the school years. An underlying cause in the secondary of which I am a Governor is a lack of parental interest in their boys' education. Can anyone explain why additional grammar schools will solve this? Those boys will not end up at the grammar unless there is some intervention to make it happen - a 'named person' to act as an education advocate for bright WWC kids maybe?
Academies are already selective. They can (and frequently do) select a portion of their intake on aptitude (not ability), which seems like a sensible compromise.
Grammar Schools are one of those beloved yet politically impractical Tory shibboleths that bubble up from time to time, perhaps round the time there's a new Tory leader, and the truculent fucks of the backbenches calculate they can be bounced into something they haven't yet plucked up the strength to say no to.
My guess is that May is running this up the flagpole now so she can use the inevitable frontlash as a reason to ignore the backbenches.
One of the best things Margaret Thatcher ever did was to close/merge a record number of grammar schools.
She knew grammars only help a few and damage more than they help.
Grammar Schools are one of those beloved yet politically impractical Tory shibboleths that bubble up from time to time, perhaps round the time there's a new Tory leader, and the truculent fucks of the backbenches calculate they can be bounced into something they haven't yet plucked up the strength to say no to.
My guess is that May is running this up the flagpole now so she can use the inevitable frontlash as a reason to ignore the backbenches.
I said on Twitter that this was Mrs May metaphorically brandishing Cameron's severed head in front of the troops. I still think that's the case.
My guess is that May is running this up the flagpole now so she can use the inevitable frontlash as a reason to ignore the backbenches.
May is above all 'what works' over 'theory' - so I agree, she'll let grammar schools trot once round the paddock before being retired in favour of academies.
Old French joke. 'It may work in practice - but does it work in theory?'
Grammar schools are great. I went to one and received an education normally only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for it. Without going to a grammar school I would not be where I am today. More should be given the opportunity to attend grammar schools and comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
@Mortimer Then you are missing out on a careful dissection of statistics (from 2013) showing that those areas with grammar schools provide inferior education overall on pretty much any metric:
"As far as we can tell, introducing selection is not good at raising school productivity. In fact, the region [of those counties that have grammar schools] is actually a bit of a laggard."
"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."
Thanks for the info!
The comparatives should be how those in grammar schools in grammar schools areas do vs those not in grammar school areas, surely? If it highlights the need for better education in weaker schools in grammar school areas, all the better.
The other problem with these statistics is areas with grammar schools are generally very poorly off in terms of funding compared to non grammar areas. My old politics tutor is now Head at my local grammar - I saw him a few years ago and was shocked when he told me how badly off for funding our area is.
Mr. Llama, just a nudge about that e-mail I sent you a little while ago.
Mr. M, it's mildly amusing that grammar schools are simultaneously unpopular as a policy yet over-subscribed as educational institutions.
Mr MD, they're popular as a policy.
And I'm guessing that they're especially popular in the marginal seats of the Midlands...
Islingtonites worried that their little Ruperts and Jemimas are not going to be able to compete when school selection is not linked to house prices or are going to have to mix with those from poorer background with more innate potential are not going to vote Tory anyway...
They'll just pay for tutors, as well off parents do currently in Bucks and Kent. That's why so few kids from poor backgrounds get into grammars in those areas where they are still prevalent.
@Mortimer Then you are missing out on a careful dissection of statistics (from 2013) showing that those areas with grammar schools provide inferior education overall on pretty much any metric:
"As far as we can tell, introducing selection is not good at raising school productivity. In fact, the region [of those counties that have grammar schools] is actually a bit of a laggard."
"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."
Thanks for the info!
The comparatives should be how those in grammar schools in grammar schools areas do vs those not in grammar school areas, surely? If it highlights the need for better education in weaker schools in grammar school areas, all the better.
The other problem with these statistics is areas with grammar schools are generally very poorly off in terms of funding compared to non grammar areas. My old politics tutor is now Head at my local grammar - I saw him a few years ago and was shocked when he told me how badly off for funding our area is.
As I said, you can design these 'studies' to show whatever you want.
The real evidence is the revealed preferences of consumers.
The overriding issue in education today is an under achievement of white, working class boys from an early age that widens through the school years. An underlying cause in the secondary of which I am a Governor is a lack of parental interest in their boys' education. Can anyone explain why additional grammar schools will solve this? Those boys will not end up at the grammar unless there is some intervention to make it happen - a 'named person' to act as an education advocate for bright WWC kids maybe?
My uncle was a WWC (and Welsh too, so should that be WWWC?) council estate boy who went to grammar and ended up with a very good job in local government. Most of his siblings have never had a job other than retail or equivalent...
Mandatory 11+ gives children from all backgrounds a chance for an education more suited to their aptitude, irrespective of background.
I hope someone with a much better grasp of the Bernie/Jezza mindset will pen an article about the phenomenon.
I think those looking for an explanation of the phenomenon are perhaps in danger of looking too deeply.
Yes, there is an active hard core of lefties who have hung their hat on him as a vehicle to project their left wing socialist ideologies.
However, I am convinced that the large majority of support he has within the membership is engendered by a public backlash against a wide range of negative things over the past few decades that has seem trust in politicians plunge to rock bottom.
The rise of career politicians, regarded as self-serving with their noses in the trough. The belief that our politicians are bought and paid for by big business and the wealthy. Cash for questions. The expenses scandal. Austerity where the biggest burden fell on those who had least, while those at the top actually got richer. The MSM increasingly seen as being more biased and less objective and mis-using their power to mislead the public. The rise of political spin. Support for the bankers, rather than jailing some of them. Increased tax avoidance from larger corporations. The increased use of tax havens by the wealthy in order to avoid paying taxes. The reticence of politicians to deal with tax avoidance. PMQ's reduced to a Punch and Judy show. The list could go on and on.
Along comes Jeremy Corbyn who appears to have, in the eyes of some, a lot of the qualities that have been missing from most of our politicians for a long time. Honesty, integrity, straight talking, says he wants a new kind of politics which gives more power to the people. He comes across as a decent human being to his followers. He shows strength and courage in standing firm against those in the PLP who have briefed and plotted against him since day one.
The attacks by almost all of the MSM become so frenzied and blatantly unfair that. even if there are valid criticisms of him, those are overlooked and dismissed by those who support him as being part and parcel of an organised and sustained unfair attack on him. The MSM and the PLP plotters have overplayed their hand. JC is seen by his supporters as never being given a fair chance.
Yes, it may be unrealistic to expect our politicians to always act with integrity and honesty and put the interests of the people they serve above their own interests and the interests of those who financially support them, but there are a lot of people who buy into that ideal and for all his faults, Jeremy Corbyn comes across as an honest and decent man who has not been given a fair chance, by his PLP colleagues and the MSM.
The EU Brexit vote was seen as a public backlash. The Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon is also a backlash and an ideological belief that our current politics and politicians do not have to be this way.
Grammar schools are great. [snip] ... comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
So actually, it's not grammar schools *per se* that are great but their attitude to education.
@Mortimer No, it's not right to compare just grammar schools with other schools in other areas. That's like comparing first team rugby players with random schoolchildren for sporting prowess.
You have to look at how those areas educate all children. Unless you don't care about the underclass of course (which is the unspoken truth behind many of those advocating grammar schools).
The overriding issue in education today is an under achievement of white, working class boys from an early age that widens through the school years. An underlying cause in the secondary of which I am a Governor is a lack of parental interest in their boys' education. Can anyone explain why additional grammar schools will solve this? Those boys will not end up at the grammar unless there is some intervention to make it happen - a 'named person' to act as an education advocate for bright WWC kids maybe?
My uncle was a WWC (and Welsh too, so should that be WWWC?) council estate boy who went to grammar and ended up with a very good job in local government. Most of his siblings have never had a job other than retail or equivalent...
Mandatory 11+ gives children from all backgrounds a chance for an education more suited to their aptitude, irrespective of background.
The closure of Welsh grammars (which took quite a large intake relative to some other parts of the country) has been very negative indeed for Wales.
Not been around for a few days as one of my closest mates was getting married in Cambridge,
Never been prouder to be a member of the Tory Party than when I woke up yesterday to news that the new Grammar schools ban may be repealed. I owe an awful lot to my local state grammar, and amongst my peer group are some very successful friends from very modest backgrounds that similarly attribute much of their success to being fortunate enough to grow up in Dorset - where there are still several very good grammars.
It is also VERY good politics - I'm reading that between 7-8 out of 10 of the general public support them. Immediate response from Lib Dem leadership and Labour figures suggesting they'll use the Lords to block any such legislation probably means another 2-4% in the opinion polls for May's eminently sensible and centrist Tories.
Policies that are good, popular and highlight the problems with the opposition parties are the bedrock of good government. Well done Ma'am; very well done.
It's a double-edged sword: how many of the public back more secondary moderns?
The reality is that the original grammars were smaller than most secondary schools are these days. The better solution is to have grammar-like streams within secondary schools, which also makes moving from one stream to the other easier and avoids the perception problems that sec mods have.
I went to a 50’s grammar school. Divisive and elitist.
Was that the school or the society it existed within? 1950s England, while quite socially mobile, was a horribly class-riven place.
The exam question is: is it worth the opportunity cost for others?
It has been extensively shown to not be, hence Cameron's jettisoning of it 10 years ago and his emphasis on Gove's educational reforms.
Streamed comprehensives is probably a better answer, as is spending more ££ on education so that more accept that their children will get a good outcome at a state school. It happens in Surrey and Oxfordshire.
In some Labour counties, parents despair of the local authority schools and rightly will do all they can for their children so they go private. In the better-off home counties, they don't need to pay for their secondary education.
I went to a 60s small town grammar school. It wasn't that elitist, apart from playing rugby not soccer. It even accepted occsional students from the secondary modern at ages 12/13, in cases where both the headmasters felt that person had been hard done by. However, I later felt that my fellow students at university had had a better education in the top stream of their mostly city comprehensives.
Mr. Llama, just a nudge about that e-mail I sent you a little while ago.
Mr. M, it's mildly amusing that grammar schools are simultaneously unpopular as a policy yet over-subscribed as educational institutions.
Mr MD, they're popular as a policy.
And I'm guessing that they're especially popular in the marginal seats of the Midlands...
Islingtonites worried that their little Ruperts and Jemimas are not going to be able to compete when school selection is not linked to house prices or are going to have to mix with those from poorer background with more innate potential are not going to vote Tory anyway...
They'll just pay for tutors, as well off parents do currently in Bucks and Kent. That's why so few kids from poor backgrounds get into grammars in those areas where they are still prevalent.
SO have you ever taken one of these tests, or seen them? I took two (strange set up in Dorset that means you can choose between two local grammars at different times) - passed both without tuition. I also went through one about five years later with a poor relative - I went through literally one question with her and she aced the rest.
Similarly my richest school pal failed the same test I passed - despite tutition - whilst one of my poorest mates passed without either tutition or expectation of passing.
With money you can 100% game the current entrance requirements. With money you can maybe give your child a low percentage edge with grammars - surely the second system is fairer?
Grammar schools are great. I went to one and received an education normally only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for it. Without going to a grammar school I would not be where I am today. More should be given the opportunity to attend grammar schools and comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
@Mortimer No, it's not right to compare just grammar schools with other schools in other areas. That's like comparing first team rugby players with random schoolchildren for sporting prowess.
You have to look at how those areas educate all children. Unless you don't care about the underclass of course (which is the unspoken truth behind many of those advocating grammar schools).
Nah, it isn't, because it ignore the fact that areas with grammar schools have very poor funding overall.
Grammar schools are great. [snip] ... comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
So actually, it's not grammar schools *per se* that are great but their attitude to education.
Yes, probably. Whether or not grammar schools contribute to that attitude is not clear, at least not to me. However, governments of all types have tried to make comprehensive schools better, but none have yet succeeded. If it were possible to make comprehensive schools take up the mantle of a grammar (or independent) school style education, it would already have been done.
The overriding issue in education today is an under achievement of white, working class boys from an early age that widens through the school years. An underlying cause in the secondary of which I am a Governor is a lack of parental interest in their boys' education. Can anyone explain why additional grammar schools will solve this? Those boys will not end up at the grammar unless there is some intervention to make it happen - a 'named person' to act as an education advocate for bright WWC kids maybe?
As a grammar school boy myself, I am instinctively in favour of them. But what I had not realised until now is just how poorly working class kids did in grammars. The comparative O level success rates in the heyday of the grammar schools are stark and do indicate that expectation, nurture and environment were much more important than passing the 11+. From family experience that rings true. Both my parents went to grammar schools, as did my father in law. They all left at 15 with a combined O level count of 3. Their parents loved them, but had all had only basic educations, there were no books in the house and money was extremely tight. Looking back, they didn't really have much of a chance. I guess they used that when it came to their own kids and, thanks to the post-war boom and the welfare state, were able to push/encourage/support my wife and I in ways they never had or could have had.
I guess that's a very long way of saying you're right: it's what happens at home that determines so much and that maybe this is they key more than anything else.
Mr. Llama, just a nudge about that e-mail I sent you a little while ago.
Mr. M, it's mildly amusing that grammar schools are simultaneously unpopular as a policy yet over-subscribed as educational institutions.
Mr MD, they're popular as a policy.
And I'm guessing that they're especially popular in the marginal seats of the Midlands...
Islingtonites worried that their little Ruperts and Jemimas are not going to be able to compete when school selection is not linked to house prices or are going to have to mix with those from poorer background with more innate potential are not going to vote Tory anyway...
They'll just pay for tutors, as well off parents do currently in Bucks and Kent. That's why so few kids from poor backgrounds get into grammars in those areas where they are still prevalent.
SO have you ever taken one of these tests, or seen them? I took two (strange set up in Dorset that means you can choose between two local grammars at different times) - passed both without tuition. I also went through one about five years later with a poor relative - I went through literally one question with her and she aced the rest.
Similarly my richest school pal failed the same test I passed - despite tutition - whilst one of my poorest mates passed without either tutition or expectation of passing.
With money you can 100% game the current entrance requirements. With money you can maybe give your child a low percentage edge with grammars - surely the second system is fairer?
Yes if apparently it was so easy for middle class parents to get their kids into grammars, why did some of them supposedly turn against them in the first place?
At least one of these popular assertions of the left is a myth.
It's curious how all the grammar school advocates come out with a cascade of anecdotes and are strongly hostile to any statistics. Obviously grammar schools are poor at teaching reasoning skills.
Grammar schools are great. I went to one and received an education normally only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for it. Without going to a grammar school I would not be where I am today. More should be given the opportunity to attend grammar schools and comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
This.
Trouble is that grammar schools now *are* only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for them. You either send your kids to an independent school up to 11 or have them expensively tutored. Otherwise they have no chance.
They were great in their day (I went to one too) but that was then.
The overriding issue in education today is an under achievement of white, working class boys from an early age that widens through the school years. An underlying cause in the secondary of which I am a Governor is a lack of parental interest in their boys' education. Can anyone explain why additional grammar schools will solve this? Those boys will not end up at the grammar unless there is some intervention to make it happen - a 'named person' to act as an education advocate for bright WWC kids maybe?
Unfortunately if some chavs want to treat education as a joke, encouraged by their parents, there is little that can realistically be done about it for them. Grammar schools don't help them, they help the hard working and bright poor kids get separated from the chavs mucking around so the bright kids get pushed to the best of their ability.
Middle class and rich parents can separate their kids by moving house and getting a good postcode.
The overriding issue in education today is an under achievement of white, working class boys from an early age that widens through the school years. An underlying cause in the secondary of which I am a Governor is a lack of parental interest in their boys' education. Can anyone explain why additional grammar schools will solve this? Those boys will not end up at the grammar unless there is some intervention to make it happen - a 'named person' to act as an education advocate for bright WWC kids maybe?
My uncle was a WWC (and Welsh too, so should that be WWWC?) council estate boy who went to grammar and ended up with a very good job in local government. Most of his siblings have never had a job other than retail or equivalent...
Mandatory 11+ gives children from all backgrounds a chance for an education more suited to their aptitude, irrespective of background.
Don't think mandatory 11+ is being proposed, rather the expansion of grammar schools under existing arrangements whereby the parents choose to enter their child and, as I understand it, in many cases pay for tutoring to get their kids through the entrance exam. If the parents don't value education, the child won't be entered.
Grammar schools are great. [snip] ... comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
So actually, it's not grammar schools *per se* that are great but their attitude to education.
Yes, probably. Whether or not grammar schools contribute to that attitude is not clear, at least not to me. However, governments of all types have tried to make comprehensive schools better, but none have yet succeeded. If it were possible to make comprehensive schools take up the mantle of a grammar (or independent) school style education, it would already have been done.
Don't forget the left also promised comprehensives would give a 'grammar school education for all'.
I think with quite a few decades of evidence, even the most skewed analysis by an ideologically-friendly think tank would struggle to stand up that assertion.
It's curious how all the grammar school advocates come out with a cascade of anecdotes and are strongly hostile to any statistics. Obviously grammar schools are poor at teaching reasoning skills.
It's amazing how some wish to keep the ladder firmly pulled up for people who come from poorer backgrounds. Clearly some don't like the competition for high wage jobs, they only want it for low wage jobs because it makes their coffee cheaper. You talk about an underclass, nothing has done more to create an underclass in Britain than mass migration, something you are in favour of. It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid from someone who is supposed to be quite smart.
"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 are advocating disadvantaging the poor and helping the rich.
"New research conducted by Electoral Calculus indicates that the Conservatives could have a majority of ninety seats from the combined effects of new constituency boundaries and current voting intention. The official Boundary Commissions will not give their initial proposals for another month. But Electoral Calculus has projected its own set of new boundaries, as an early indication of their likely effect. These projected boundaries were created uniquely by Electoral Calculus from a detailed analysis of previous boundary proposals with updated electoral geography.
Grammar schools are great. [snip] ... comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
So actually, it's not grammar schools *per se* that are great but their attitude to education.
This is true. It was normal and expected at my grammar that most pupils would stay into 6th form and go to university, and that their parents would support them. This was at a time when most left school at 16 and child support stopped at 16.
Mr. Meeks, but that's a function of grammar school scarcity which enables the wealthy to dominate intake by buying up the local housing. If grammars were all over the place, that wouldn't happen or, at least, would be diminished.
[I'm not strongly either way on the grammar schools policy].
Fast forward to mid-January 2017 - the snow is falling, the power cuts have started, the Conservatives are 15 points behind Labour and the Lib Dems in the polls.
Norwich are 25 points clear at the top of the Championship - Jeremy Corbyn calls Strictly Come Dancing winner Ed Balls - "you can do no wrong, take over as Labour leader. I'll resign so you can take over my seat"
A month later, a dispirited Theresa May rises to begin PMQs - the backbenchers are snarling, George Osborne is sneering and she faces new Labour leader Ed Balls with his Norwich City are Champions 2017" lapel badge and she knows, she knows it's over....
"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 are advocating disadvantaging the poor and helping the rich.
Chris Cook...that should have warning bells ringing...and it isn't quite what it seems. Have to dash, but is flawed.
There are legitimate concerns over 11 plus and those that exploit the system by getting private tutors etc, but that playing field could be leveled. Also, enabling entry at different stages, not just only 11.
As with all education, there isn't a one size fits all. Grammars are good for some, free schools, academies, etc. They should all be part of the mix.
"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 are advocating disadvantaging the poor and helping the rich.
I'm open to that argument, it's why the entrance exams need to be fixed. Aptitude testing is the way forwards and I'd extend primary education to 13 so slower developing children get a decent chance as well. The system as it is doesn't work, I don't disagree but with a few small changes it could. Obviously when I took the exams the culture was different, I'd say half of kids in my school were relatively poor and about a third lived on estates. I'm sure today that's different, but it is not a difficult problem to fix. Tests that cannot be gamed do exist, they should be introduced and the advantage given to the middle classes taken away.
It's curious how all the grammar school advocates come out with a cascade of anecdotes and are strongly hostile to any statistics. Obviously grammar schools are poor at teaching reasoning skills.
I can only speak from my own experience, but my Comprehensive very much aimed for catering for the mid to low ranking pupil. Their main concern was the percentage of kids getting 5 good GCSEs. Perfectly reasonable, you might think. The problem was with my own education they were more bothered about what I wasn't good at (English) than what I was very good at (maths).
I'm not sure if a Grammar School education would have set me up better and kept me focused on what I was really good at, but as a kid it can be quite difficult to judge just how good you are at something, especially when you're dumped in a class of 37 because the school wants to focus its resources on those who need the most help.
What I think was really wrong with my education was that my school did not have a sixth form. As far as they were concerned you stopped being their problem at 16. I had very poor guidance on my A-Level selections and by the time I figured out what I might like to do at university it was too late. My Comprehensive was very good at encouraging budding doctors and dentists. Lawyers, economists, dare I say politicians? Not so much.
The question is, how many of these new members paid their £25 to be a registered supporter? The big loser here could be the Labour party, a lot of refunds might about to be issued.
Grammar schools are great. I went to one and received an education normally only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for it. Without going to a grammar school I would not be where I am today. More should be given the opportunity to attend grammar schools and comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
This.
Trouble is that grammar schools now *are* only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for them. You either send your kids to an independent school up to 11 or have them expensively tutored. Otherwise they have no chance.
They were great in their day (I went to one too) but that was then.
I'm sorry this is a very lazy set of arguments, which may apply to some extent to the ridiculously oversubscribed schools in and around London but not anywhere else.
The grammar school my daughter attends has about a 10% intake from private schools and evidence of tutoring is pretty limited as well according to the senior staff. It also shows up pretty quickly in underperformance later on, and as such the school strongly discourages it. Most of the kids are from fairly ordinary families from the local towns and villages.
The solution to the 'problem' of tutoring etc. is to open more grammar schools and expand existing ones. Have a look at Northern Ireland, where about 40% of transferring students attend grammars now.
"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 are advocating disadvantaging the poor and helping the rich.
That's where the obsession with grammar schools alone is wrong IMO: it has to be part of a complete system. And sadly, that means if you have grammar schools, you need to spend *more* on the kids who fail to get in. Otherwise they will be even further left behind.
With one or two honourable exceptions, people talk about 'grammar schools' and ignore the rest of the system. That's a recipe for social disaster.
Then again, our current education 'system' is hardly well thought-out or designed to work. Instead of harking back to a past system that did not work for everyone, why not decide what end-results we want for all children and build a system to get that?
It may or may not include grammar schools, technical colleges, streaming or setting, after-hours classes, etc, etc. But what we have always had in education appears to be a disjointed mess designed solely to get headline-grabbing exam results, not to let all kids reach their potential.
Fast forward to mid-January 2017 - the snow is falling, the power cuts have started, the Conservatives are 15 points behind Labour and the Lib Dems in the polls.
Norwich are 25 points clear at the top of the Championship - Jeremy Corbyn calls Strictly Come Dancing winner Ed Balls - "you can do no wrong, take over as Labour leader. I'll resign so you can take over my seat"
A month later, a dispirited Theresa May rises to begin PMQs - the backbenchers are snarling, George Osborne is sneering and she faces new Labour leader Ed Balls with his Norwich City are Champions 2017" lapel badge and she knows, she knows it's over....
However, wildly implausible that would be, imagine telling yourself at 21.59 on May 7th 2015 that the Tories were about to win a majority, and within 60 weeks or so, J Corbyn would romp home as LOTO, Cameron would bet the farm, and we'd be on the way out of the EU, GO's a backbencher, we'd have a second woman PM, D Trump is GOP candidate for most powerful job on earth, and Leicester would win the Premier League by 10 points.
Roy Hodgson and his charges were the sole rock of predictability in a world in flux.....
One of the mistake politicians make is to impose their personal experiences on the rest of the world. Blair and Cameron did it wrt to education.
Whether you went to a comp, sec mod, grammar or private school, the first step is to realise that there are many routes to success and one size certainly does not fit all.
The idea that you make state schools more successful by forcing them into mini Etons/Fettes is particularly naive IMO.
The overriding issue in education today is an under achievement of white, working class boys from an early age that widens through the school years. An underlying cause in the secondary of which I am a Governor is a lack of parental interest in their boys' education. Can anyone explain why additional grammar schools will solve this? Those boys will not end up at the grammar unless there is some intervention to make it happen - a 'named person' to act as an education advocate for bright WWC kids maybe?
Unfortunately if some chavs want to treat education as a joke, encouraged by their parents, there is little that can realistically be done about it for them. Grammar schools don't help them, they help the hard working and bright poor kids get separated from the chavs mucking around so the bright kids get pushed to the best of their ability.
Middle class and rich parents can separate their kids by moving house and getting a good postcode.
Hard working and bright poor kids do very well in any good or outstanding state secondary school - the exception are those schools that require improvement and which are mainly clustered in northern, metropolitan areas with poor performing local education authorities. The DfE has, or at least had, these LEAs very firmly in their sights. The pressure on state schools and LEAs to improve outcomes and close achievement gaps is fierce and is working in most areas, let the Regional School Commisioners now sort out the remaining poor performers.
Your comment about chavs suggests that, having secured their votes for Brexit, you are amongst those who are now happy to resume the prejudices that were replaced by faux concern for a few weeks.
Five new members of the #Labour Party have won a High Court battle over their legal right to vote in the forthcoming leadership election
Seems fair enough, given they were told they'd have a vote when they joined.
I wonder if they get two votes if they also forked out £25 as to become registered supporters?
The system is based on OMOV, I think - so if they'd paid again in order to get a vote they'd been told they'd be denied otherwise, I'd have thought they'd be due a refund of their £25 rather than two votes?
Fast forward to mid-January 2017 - the snow is falling, the power cuts have started, the Conservatives are 15 points behind Labour and the Lib Dems in the polls.
Norwich are 25 points clear at the top of the Championship - Jeremy Corbyn calls Strictly Come Dancing winner Ed Balls - "you can do no wrong, take over as Labour leader. I'll resign so you can take over my seat"
A month later, a dispirited Theresa May rises to begin PMQs - the backbenchers are snarling, George Osborne is sneering and she faces new Labour leader Ed Balls with his Norwich City are Champions 2017" lapel badge and she knows, she knows it's over....
Even if there are an infinite number of Universes, I still doubt there's one with that scenario unfolding.....
It looks to me like Tom Watson's the PLP's attempts to rig the election for Owen Smith are failing horribly, backfiring and the counterfactual of showing some bloody respect to their LEADER would have been superior.
Five new members of the #Labour Party have won a High Court battle over their legal right to vote in the forthcoming leadership election
Seems fair enough, given they were told they'd have a vote when they joined.
I wonder if they get two votes if they also forked out £25 as to become registered supporters?
The system is based on OMOV, I think - so if they'd paid again in order to get a vote they'd been told they'd be denied otherwise, I'd have thought they'd be due a refund of their £25 rather than two votes?
My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but it's a spectacular mess however you look at it.
One of the mistake politicians make is to impose their personal experiences on the rest of the world. Blair and Cameron did it wrt to education.
Whether you went to a comp, sec mod, grammar or private school, the first step is to realise that there are many routes to success and one size certainly does not fit all. ...
Fast forward to mid-January 2017 - the snow is falling, the power cuts have started, the Conservatives are 15 points behind Labour and the Lib Dems in the polls.
Norwich are 25 points clear at the top of the Championship - Jeremy Corbyn calls Strictly Come Dancing winner Ed Balls - "you can do no wrong, take over as Labour leader. I'll resign so you can take over my seat"
A month later, a dispirited Theresa May rises to begin PMQs - the backbenchers are snarling, George Osborne is sneering and she faces new Labour leader Ed Balls with his Norwich City are Champions 2017" lapel badge and she knows, she knows it's over....
Balls out early - I suspect he'll be the first one booted off!
It's curious how all the grammar school advocates come out with a cascade of anecdotes and are strongly hostile to any statistics. Obviously grammar schools are poor at teaching reasoning skills.
What I think was really wrong with my education was that my school did not have a sixth form. As far as they were concerned you stopped being their problem at 16. I had very poor guidance on my A-Level selections and by the time I figured out what I might like to do at university it was too late. My Comprehensive was very good at encouraging budding doctors and dentists. Lawyers, economists, dare I say politicians? Not so much.
Your worth as a teacher is determined by how many of your kids get 5 grades A-C at GCSE. The side effect of this is obvious, a phenomenon I've heard called "C banging".
Essentially teachers ignore the A-Bs (who can take care of themselves) and ignore the EFGs (who're write offs) and dedicate all their time to trying to flip those Ds to Cs, and stop the Cs flipping to Ds.
So teachers are ignoring pupils expected to get 5 of the available 7 grades. This is, of course, a perfectly rational side effect of the perverse incentive of the 5 grades A-C target.
On grammar schools, instinctively I'm for them but if the evidence isn't there then I'm not so bothered about creating a hobby horse either way. I'd probably abstain from the vote, or just go whichever way I was whipped if I was an MP.
Comments
If anyone objects and refuses, I wish it to be known I am willing to take £13,000 in their place.
Killer for me is that good comps are far easier to game entrance to through middle class wealth rather than child potential - it's all about house prices. This should not be an issue that affects education in this country.
As someone who has written a few reports of this kind, I can tell you 'evidence based' policy making is more accurately described as 'please find us some evidence for this policy which we want to accept/reject'. If you don't, someone else will.
And I'm guessing that they're especially popular in the marginal seats of the Midlands...
Islingtonites worried that their little Ruperts and Jemimas are not going to be able to compete when school selection is not linked to house prices or are going to have to mix with those from poorer background with more innate potential are not going to vote Tory anyway...
"As far as we can tell, introducing selection is not good at raising school productivity. In fact, the region [of those counties that have grammar schools] is actually a bit of a laggard."
"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."
My guess is that May is running this up the flagpole now so she can use the inevitable frontlash as a reason to ignore the backbenches.
However, just as I'm content to let the 'City' remain a black box, so it goes with education. I am but one person. My youngest is 23. It's for others to decide what's best for their children.
Academies are already selective. They can (and frequently do) select a portion of their intake on aptitude (not ability), which seems like a sensible compromise.
Still think May should give Lord Adonis a job.
She knew grammars only help a few and damage more than they help.
Old French joke. 'It may work in practice - but does it work in theory?'
The comparatives should be how those in grammar schools in grammar schools areas do vs those not in grammar school areas, surely? If it highlights the need for better education in weaker schools in grammar school areas, all the better.
The other problem with these statistics is areas with grammar schools are generally very poorly off in terms of funding compared to non grammar areas. My old politics tutor is now Head at my local grammar - I saw him a few years ago and was shocked when he told me how badly off for funding our area is.
The real evidence is the revealed preferences of consumers.
Mandatory 11+ gives children from all backgrounds a chance for an education more suited to their aptitude, irrespective of background.
Yes, there is an active hard core of lefties who have hung their hat on him as a vehicle to project their left wing socialist ideologies.
However, I am convinced that the large majority of support he has within the membership is engendered by a public backlash against a wide range of negative things over the past few decades that has seem trust in politicians plunge to rock bottom.
The rise of career politicians, regarded as self-serving with their noses in the trough. The belief that our politicians are bought and paid for by big business and the wealthy. Cash for questions. The expenses scandal. Austerity where the biggest burden fell on those who had least, while those at the top actually got richer. The MSM increasingly seen as being more biased and less objective and mis-using their power to mislead the public. The rise of political spin. Support for the bankers, rather than jailing some of them. Increased tax avoidance from larger corporations. The increased use of tax havens by the wealthy in order to avoid paying taxes. The reticence of politicians to deal with tax avoidance. PMQ's reduced to a Punch and Judy show. The list could go on and on.
Along comes Jeremy Corbyn who appears to have, in the eyes of some, a lot of the qualities that have been missing from most of our politicians for a long time. Honesty, integrity, straight talking, says he wants a new kind of politics which gives more power to the people. He comes across as a decent human being to his followers. He shows strength and courage in standing firm against those in the PLP who have briefed and plotted against him since day one.
The attacks by almost all of the MSM become so frenzied and blatantly unfair that. even if there are valid criticisms of him, those are overlooked and dismissed by those who support him as being part and parcel of an organised and sustained unfair attack on him. The MSM and the PLP plotters have overplayed their hand. JC is seen by his supporters as never being given a fair chance.
Yes, it may be unrealistic to expect our politicians to always act with integrity and honesty and put the interests of the people they serve above their own interests and the interests of those who financially support them, but there are a lot of people who buy into that ideal and for all his faults, Jeremy Corbyn comes across as an honest and decent man who has not been given a fair chance, by his PLP colleagues and the MSM.
The EU Brexit vote was seen as a public backlash. The Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon is also a backlash and an ideological belief that our current politics and politicians do not have to be this way.
£5.8m investment and 120 jobs created in Manchester.
'Fat git who couldn't dance to save his life - lets keep him in' vote
or the
'That w*nker - lets vote him out'
It will be interesting to see his dedication....
You have to look at how those areas educate all children. Unless you don't care about the underclass of course (which is the unspoken truth behind many of those advocating grammar schools).
In some Labour counties, parents despair of the local authority schools and rightly will do all they can for their children so they go private. In the better-off home counties, they don't need to pay for their secondary education.
I went to a 60s small town grammar school. It wasn't that elitist, apart from playing rugby not soccer. It even accepted occsional students from the secondary modern at ages 12/13, in cases where both the headmasters felt that person had been hard done by. However, I later felt that my fellow students at university had had a better education in the top stream of their mostly city comprehensives.
Similarly my richest school pal failed the same test I passed - despite tutition - whilst one of my poorest mates passed without either tutition or expectation of passing.
With money you can 100% game the current entrance requirements. With money you can maybe give your child a low percentage edge with grammars - surely the second system is fairer?
(No, I am not seriously comparing Trump to Lincoln. I just thought the timing was amusing).
I guess that's a very long way of saying you're right: it's what happens at home that determines so much and that maybe this is they key more than anything else.
At least one of these popular assertions of the left is a myth.
They were great in their day (I went to one too) but that was then.
Middle class and rich parents can separate their kids by moving house and getting a good postcode.
[Also, anecdotes beat statistics at the referendum. And General Election. Statistics are only useful if they're accurate].
I think with quite a few decades of evidence, even the most skewed analysis by an ideologically-friendly think tank would struggle to stand up that assertion.
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/
"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 are advocating disadvantaging the poor and helping the rich.
Peaty's nan tells the BBC how he hated the water and used to scream everytime he got in the bath.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37008200
... The boundary changes alone could increase the Conservative majority from a slender twelve seats to a comfortable 48 seats."
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
[I'm not strongly either way on the grammar schools policy].
Norwich are 25 points clear at the top of the Championship - Jeremy Corbyn calls Strictly Come Dancing winner Ed Balls - "you can do no wrong, take over as Labour leader. I'll resign so you can take over my seat"
A month later, a dispirited Theresa May rises to begin PMQs - the backbenchers are snarling, George Osborne is sneering and she faces new Labour leader Ed Balls with his Norwich City are Champions 2017" lapel badge and she knows, she knows it's over....
There are legitimate concerns over 11 plus and those that exploit the system by getting private tutors etc, but that playing field could be leveled. Also, enabling entry at different stages, not just only 11.
As with all education, there isn't a one size fits all. Grammars are good for some, free schools, academies, etc. They should all be part of the mix.
I'm not sure if a Grammar School education would have set me up better and kept me focused on what I was really good at, but as a kid it can be quite difficult to judge just how good you are at something, especially when you're dumped in a class of 37 because the school wants to focus its resources on those who need the most help.
What I think was really wrong with my education was that my school did not have a sixth form. As far as they were concerned you stopped being their problem at 16. I had very poor guidance on my A-Level selections and by the time I figured out what I might like to do at university it was too late. My Comprehensive was very good at encouraging budding doctors and dentists. Lawyers, economists, dare I say politicians? Not so much.
If you can't see an obvious flaw, you need to get your glasses out.
Labour members win leadership vote case
Which gives rise to this sort of view
@janinegibson: The Labour Party will now begin a three month administrative purdah while it works out whether or not its own NEC can administer it
I wonder if they get two votes if they also forked out £25 as to become registered supporters?
The grammar school my daughter attends has about a 10% intake from private schools and evidence of tutoring is pretty limited as well according to the senior staff. It also shows up pretty quickly in underperformance later on, and as such the school strongly discourages it. Most of the kids are from fairly ordinary families from the local towns and villages.
The solution to the 'problem' of tutoring etc. is to open more grammar schools and expand existing ones. Have a look at Northern Ireland, where about 40% of transferring students attend grammars now.
With one or two honourable exceptions, people talk about 'grammar schools' and ignore the rest of the system. That's a recipe for social disaster.
Then again, our current education 'system' is hardly well thought-out or designed to work. Instead of harking back to a past system that did not work for everyone, why not decide what end-results we want for all children and build a system to get that?
It may or may not include grammar schools, technical colleges, streaming or setting, after-hours classes, etc, etc. But what we have always had in education appears to be a disjointed mess designed solely to get headline-grabbing exam results, not to let all kids reach their potential.
Roy Hodgson and his charges were the sole rock of predictability in a world in flux.....
Whether you went to a comp, sec mod, grammar or private school, the first step is to realise that there are many routes to success and one size certainly does not fit all.
The idea that you make state schools more successful by forcing them into mini Etons/Fettes is particularly naive IMO.
Your comment about chavs suggests that, having secured their votes for Brexit, you are amongst those who are now happy to resume the prejudices that were replaced by faux concern for a few weeks.
We just don't know if this benefits Corbyn or his opponents.
Essentially teachers ignore the A-Bs (who can take care of themselves) and ignore the EFGs (who're write offs) and dedicate all their time to trying to flip those Ds to Cs, and stop the Cs flipping to Ds.
So teachers are ignoring pupils expected to get 5 of the available 7 grades. This is, of course, a perfectly rational side effect of the perverse incentive of the 5 grades A-C target.
The Court of Appeal will throw it out and any further delays will make the whole election process even messier
Better to swallow this, change the rules properly and with maximum transparency in readiness for next year's challenge.
What a shambles. Imagine this lot running the country..... :-o