"43% of 2015 Labour voters are favourable towards Jeremy Corbyn, compared to 30% who are unfavourable towards him. 17% are favourable towards Owen Smith, against 25% who are unfavourable towards him."
Wealthy Europhile Lawyers like Messrs. TSE and Meeks should personally foot the bill for any continued EU protection money contributions IF we don't end up leaving.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
If only the present education system worked.
It might be daft but why don't they make all existing schools have the same quality of education as grammar ones, instead of secondary moderns like now.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
Mr. StClare, counter-intuitive things happen with direct descendants over long periods of time. Over 99% of Anglo-Saxon Englishmen are directly descended from Mohammed. [Because John of Gaunt had many children, and I think his wife was descended from a Moorish noble who was descended from Mohammed].
Edited extra bit: for those wondering, the source for that is Ian Mortimer, in his biography of Edward III.
It's correct - his wife was Constance of Castile, who was a descendant of the Amir of Seville al-Andalus and hence his children descend from Fatima, daughter of Mohammed.
I'd be slightly surprised if 99% of Anglo-Saxon Englishmen are descended from Mohammed, though, as John of Gaunt had 3 wives and many more temporary arrangements - of his entire litter, Constance had only one child - Catherine of Castile - who survived infancy
edit: you may be muddling it up with the statistic that something like 70% (?) of the current British population are descended from Edward III?
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
The peak time for Grammar school closures started 1 year after she became education secretary and did not slow under her at all.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
I think most happened once she became Education Secretary.
She saw the evidence, ask yourself, if she thought it was a mistake, when she was PM, usually with stonking majorities, why didn't she open a single new grammar school as PM?
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
I think most happened once she became Education Secretary.
She saw the evidence, ask yourself, if she thought it was a mistake, when she was PM, usually with stonking majorities, why didn't she open a single new grammar school as PM?
She saw the evidence.
The privately-educated disliked competition from the grammar school educated.
People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
- Margaret Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 14 October, 1977.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
I think most happened once she became Education Secretary.
She saw the evidence, ask yourself, if she thought it was a mistake, when she was PM, usually with stonking majorities, why didn't she open a single new grammar school as PM?
She saw the evidence.
She also campaigned in favour of IN in 1975, yet by 1989 she was banging on about Europe.
Over the very long term things change. After 40 years of trying with the comprehensive system and failing to produce results, the evidence is against it.
The whole grammar school debate (on here at least) misses the point. We don't really know what works (except private schools, which are a bit too expensive to roll out) but our current education system is not exactly brilliant. We don't need to ensure that everywhere has grammars and secondary moderns, we need to let lots of different types of schools exist, let parents send their children to the schools they want to, let popular schools expand and unpopular ones close. Give it a bit of time and we might have a hope of working out what actually works.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
I'm not surprised. But it comes with a massive caveat. What the general public answering a survey think is not the same as what parents with children going through the school system think. Most parent hate grammar schools because their children go to the other place.
The world's changed from when grammar and secondary schools were the norm. Most parents want their children to go to university. They expect an education system that is oriented towards them achieving that result. They are very negative towards any system that discriminates against their children.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
I would hope that if we have learnt that the Grammars have a role to play in academic education (and maybe social mobility - all open to discussion) and that for those who are not endowed with academic ability, they have other skills. Maybe they are late developers, maybe they have strengths in other directions, but by now and with the learning we have from the previous incarnation of Grammar Schools, is it really the case that the only alternative is a return to Secondary Moderns? Surely we now know how to educate, value, encourage, nurture and challenge the non academic. Regardless of the existence of Grammar Schools, we are still going to have to deal with academic and non academic children.
If hand on heart you believe our current system is the best imaginable for the nations children, then that is fine. If it isn't, shouldn't we push for the best imaginable for all children?
People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
- Margaret Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 14 October, 1977.
Whenever I see the name Shirley Williams I automatically remember the anagram I Whirl Aimlessly
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why is the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
I would hope that if we have learnt that the Grammars have a role to play in academic education (and maybe social mobility - all open to discussion) and that for those who are not endowed with academic ability, they have other skills. Maybe they are late developers, maybe they have strengths in other directions, but by now and with the learning we have from the previous incarnation of Grammar Schools, is it really the case that the only alternative is a return to Secondary Moderns? Surely we now know how to educate, value, encourage, nurture and challenge the non academic. Regardless of the existence of Grammar Schools, we are still going to have to deal with academic and non academic children.
If hand on heart you believe our current system is the best imaginable for the nations children, then that is fine. If it isn't, shouldn't we push for the best imaginable for all children?
I know I've done well in life because my parents made a lot of sacrifices so I could attend a very fine school. That set me up for life.
I think we have to become a bit more elitist, we have to accept that 50% going to uni is a mistake, we need to make sure when children leave school they have the skills to start work straightaway.
Why not have academic selections within schools? I think they call it setting.
When people are asked in the abstract what age in the past they would have liked to live in, they imagine themselves Roman emperors rather than slaves, eunuchs or even plebs.
Similarly, when asked their views on grammar schools, they never consider that they or their children might be among the losers.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
I think most happened once she became Education Secretary.
She saw the evidence, ask yourself, if she thought it was a mistake, when she was PM, usually with stonking majorities, why didn't she open a single new grammar school as PM?
She saw the evidence.
The privately-educated disliked competition from the grammar school educated.
That was certainly my experience running the admissions at my grammar school - many prep school applicants because we outperformed Dulwich college , etc in our broader catchment area - fortunately our criteria allowed us to give places to the local town children who reached the selection threshold first.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
snip.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why is the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
I would hope that if we have learnt that the Grammars have a role to play in academic education (and maybe social mobility - all open to discussion) and that for those who are not endowed with academic ability, they have other skills. Maybe they are late developers, maybe they have strengths in other directions, but by now and with the learning we have from the previous incarnation of Grammar Schools, is it really the case that the only alternative is a return to Secondary Moderns? Surely we now know how to educate, value, encourage, nurture and challenge the non academic. Regardless of the existence of Grammar Schools, we are still going to have to deal with academic and non academic children.
If hand on heart you believe our current system is the best imaginable for the nations children, then that is fine. If it isn't, shouldn't we push for the best imaginable for all children?
I know I've done well in life because my parents made a lot of sacrifices so I could attend a very fine school. That set me up for life.
I think we have to become a bit more elitist, we have to accept that 50% going to uni is a mistake, we need to make sure when children leave school they have the skills to start work straightaway.
Why not have academic selections within schools? I think they call it setting.
One argument used is that in a large body of testosterone fueled teenagers of mixed ability the peer group pressure to conform to a lower level is greater than the desire to stand out as an individual and shout 'Look! I'm more clever than you'
This can result in the 'setting' turning into setting on the odd one out who 'over achieves'
When people are asked in the abstract what age in the past they would have liked to live in, they imagine themselves Roman emperors rather than slaves, eunuchs or even plebs.
Similarly, when asked their views on grammar schools, they never consider that they or their children might be among the losers.
When people are asked in the abstract what age in the past they would have liked to live in, they imagine themselves Roman emperors rather than slaves, eunuchs or even plebs.
Similarly, when asked their views on grammar schools, they never consider that they or their children might be among the losers.
What age should I like to live in ?
The 1990's, but only in the western world.
Right now, right here. Best of all possible worlds. You'd never get me to time travel to any period that predates modern dentistry.
I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
UK is 242,000 sq km and has 64 million population.
RoI is 70,000 sq km.
Doing crude maths 242,000 sq km is enough to feed 48.6 million people.
Combined size of UK and RoI is 312,000 sq km.
That is enough land to feed 62 million.
Total pop of RoI + UK is 69 million so near as dammit there and wouldn't need much additional land put into production to be fully there.
In a war situation as robert alludes to the problem would be oil to run tractors etc. and getting shipping across Irish sea etc.
Ireland has a very very low population for its size and fertility of land. Prior to the potato famine in 19th century its population was 8.2 million in 1841 million at a time when the GB population was 18.5 million. Now the whole of Ireland is approx 6.5 million and GB 62.5 million.
The point is not that it *could* be self-sufficient in food. The point is that it *isn't* self-sufficient in food.
I dud a quick back of the envelope which came up with 91% self sufficient (62.7/69).
Checking I seem to have underestimated Irish agriculture output.
For example, Beef self sufficiency in RoI is 640% ie enough beef for 32 million people.
For Sheep it is 370%. For pork 195%.
So I reckon it is fair to say that the British Isles is self sufficient in terms of being able to adequately (if boringly) feed the population.
Given a population of 70 million that shows how agricultural productivity has improved over the 20th century.
The whole grammar school debate (on here at least) misses the point. We don't really know what works (except private schools, which are a bit too expensive to roll out) but our current education system is not exactly brilliant. We don't need to ensure that everywhere has grammars and secondary moderns, we need to let lots of different types of schools exist, let parents send their children to the schools they want to, let popular schools expand and unpopular ones close. Give it a bit of time and we might have a hope of working out what actually works.
When people are asked in the abstract what age in the past they would have liked to live in, they imagine themselves Roman emperors rather than slaves, eunuchs or even plebs.
Similarly, when asked their views on grammar schools, they never consider that they or their children might be among the losers.
Far better to be one of the obscure rich, living in a backwater, rather than an Emperor or prominent Senator.
But, what you point to is a good thing. People imagine themselves doing well, rather than badly, and that leads people to take the risk of setting up their own business, exploring new places, inventing new devices.
When people are asked in the abstract what age in the past they would have liked to live in, they imagine themselves Roman emperors rather than slaves, eunuchs or even plebs.
Similarly, when asked their views on grammar schools, they never consider that they or their children might be among the losers.
What age should I like to live in ?
The 1990's, but only in the western world.
Right now, right here. Best of all possible worlds. You'd never get me to time travel to any period that predates modern dentistry.
I think they had modern dentistry in the 1990's.
Back then for the western world it was all peace and prosperity.
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
When people are asked in the abstract what age in the past they would have liked to live in, they imagine themselves Roman emperors rather than slaves, eunuchs or even plebs.
Similarly, when asked their views on grammar schools, they never consider that they or their children might be among the losers.
What age should I like to live in ?
The 1990's, but only in the western world.
Right now, right here. Best of all possible worlds. You'd never get me to time travel to any period that predates modern dentistry.
I think they had modern dentistry in the 1990's.
Back then for the western world it was all peace and prosperity.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
I think most happened once she became Education Secretary.
She saw the evidence, ask yourself, if she thought it was a mistake, when she was PM, usually with stonking majorities, why didn't she open a single new grammar school as PM?
She saw the evidence.
She also campaigned in favour of IN in 1975, yet by 1989 she was banging on about Europe.
Over the very long term things change. After 40 years of trying with the comprehensive system and failing to produce results, the evidence is against it.
I haven't the faintest idea what advantage grammars have vs. streamed comprehensives (probably with some people being in different grades for different subjects). I'm not sure how many counties went down the route of mixed ability classes; that is something I agree could have screwed up some peoples' life chances. But there's no reason to over-react to that bad idea by having full-blown apartheid.
Please name another western developed country with an 11+ and better results than England/Wales. Finland? No selective schools but it seems more selective in who it allows to teach: http://oph.fi/english/education_system/basic_education. Scotland? No selective schools either.
The whole grammar school debate (on here at least) misses the point. We don't really know what works (except private schools, which are a bit too expensive to roll out) but our current education system is not exactly brilliant. We don't need to ensure that everywhere has grammars and secondary moderns, we need to let lots of different types of schools exist, let parents send their children to the schools they want to, let popular schools expand and unpopular ones close. Give it a bit of time and we might have a hope of working out what actually works.
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
Doesn't the present system of Public schools and State schools do exactly the same? At least Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
Mike is seemingly obsessed with Corbyn. It is a little unhealthy frankly.
Heaven forfend that the editor of Political betting might focus his website on the Leader of the opposition and his record breaking personal polling.
Next you'll be complaining that water is wet.
There's a definition of wetness. I suspect its likely that most water isn't in liquid form, and thus there might be grounds for complaint in your blithe waterism.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
I would hope that if we have learnt that the Grammars have a role to play in academic education (and maybe social mobility - all open to discussion) and that for those who are not endowed with academic ability, they have other skills. Maybe they are late developers, maybe they have strengths in other directions, but by now and with the learning we have from the previous incarnation of Grammar Schools, is it really the case that the only alternative is a return to Secondary Moderns? Surely we now know how to educate, value, encourage, nurture and challenge the non academic. Regardless of the existence of Grammar Schools, we are still going to have to deal with academic and non academic children.
If hand on heart you believe our current system is the best imaginable for the nations children, then that is fine. If it isn't, shouldn't we push for the best imaginable for all children?
Oh I see. There are two categories of children, academic and non-academic.
How wonderfully simple, it's obvious that we need just two types of schools to cater for the needs of these different and easily identifiable species.
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
'Lets see how things are in a few months'. Fwiw, I think the temptation to expose momentum Labour to the voters as opposed to the members is going to become so great that May will call an election, and that will for certainly result in a greatly increased Tory majority.
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Which is an argument for better teaching and setting, not for casting the majority of children to an education which will limit their life chances forever.
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
No apologies to me.
I can perfectly understand that if one is tweeting every 90 minutes on average about the same issue or person one is to assume that he is obsessed with it.
If OGH starts to tweet about how much crap he thinks Corbyn is at 4 in the morning, then I would be slightly concerned.
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Which is an argument for better teaching and setting, not for casting the majority of children to an education which will limit their life chances forever.
How about parents wot can't afford to send their kids to Public school?
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
I don't believe there is a finite supply of good teachers - why would there be?
Personally I believe in the cut-off point being GCSE (16 yrs), at which point people could go to a 'prep' school for another two years thereafter to pursue a university degree, or go to a focused FE college for 3 years vocational, technology, craft etc. qualifications. This would mean personal choice played a big role.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
I think most happened once she became Education Secretary.
She saw the evidence, ask yourself, if she thought it was a mistake, when she was PM, usually with stonking majorities, why didn't she open a single new grammar school as PM?
She saw the evidence.
She also campaigned in favour of IN in 1975, yet by 1989 she was banging on about Europe.
Over the very long term things change. After 40 years of trying with the comprehensive system and failing to produce results, the evidence is against it.
I haven't the faintest idea what advantage grammars have vs. streamed comprehensives (probably with some people being in different grades for different subjects). I'm not sure how many counties went down the route of mixed ability classes; that is something I agree could have screwed up some peoples' life chances. But there's no reason to over-react to that bad idea by having full-blown apartheid.
Please name another western developed country with an 11+ and better results than England/Wales. Finland? No selective schools but it seems more selective in who it allows to teach: http://oph.fi/english/education_system/basic_education. Scotland? No selective schools either.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
There is a finite supply of good teachers, educationally motivated parents and educationally receptive students.
I don't agree that failure to attain a Grammar School place results in inevitable failure and abandonment. I am putting forward the concept that there are additional ways in which that cohort can be valued, nurtured and see themselves with wonderful futures.
The old system of Secondary Moderns is not acceptable, a new system could well be nirvana for these children.
If we are not intellectually capable of seeing past historic failures then we may as well give up on all children. We would have no future
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
No apologies to me.
I can perfectly understand that if one is tweeting every 90 minutes on average about the same issue or person one is to assume that he is obsessed with it.
If OGH starts to tweet about how much crap he thinks Corbyn is at 4 in the morning, then I would be slightly concerned.
Personally, I think Corbyn is at his best at 4 in the morning: he's asleep.
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
No apologies to me.
I can perfectly understand that if one is tweeting every 90 minutes on average about the same issue or person one is to assume that he is obsessed with it.
If OGH starts to tweet about how much crap he thinks Corbyn is at 4 in the morning, then I would be slightly concerned.
Actually Mike usually is awake at 4am (most of the morning threads are written at that time) as he has odd sleeping patterns.
I know, because he regularly sends me emails at 3/4 am.
And occasionally when Mike's not paying attention, when he thinks he's composing an email, he's actually sending me a text.
Comments
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
off topc - Ouch, those numbers are horrible.
Corbyn landslide in the leadership election.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
The suspect, described as a Swiss man aged 27, was also taken to hospital after the incident near Salez in St Gallen Canton, close to Liechtenstein.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37072847
I think given the current climate it would be more helpful if the authorities were clearer about the individual.
protection moneycontributions IF we don't end up leaving.It might be daft but why don't they make all existing schools have the same quality of education as grammar ones, instead of secondary moderns like now.
I'd be slightly surprised if 99% of Anglo-Saxon Englishmen are descended from Mohammed, though, as John of Gaunt had 3 wives and many more temporary arrangements - of his entire litter, Constance had only one child - Catherine of Castile - who survived infancy
edit: you may be muddling it up with the statistic that something like 70% (?) of the current British population are descended from Edward III?
My useless fact about John of Gaunt is that his badge was the red lion, which is partly why there are so many pubs of that name.
It could be a sea change or it could be an interesting example of a methodological/question problem.
We just call them 'comprehensives'.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
She saw the evidence, ask yourself, if she thought it was a mistake, when she was PM, usually with stonking majorities, why didn't she open a single new grammar school as PM?
She saw the evidence.
- Margaret Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 14 October, 1977.
Over the very long term things change.
After 40 years of trying with the comprehensive system and failing to produce results, the evidence is against it.
Next you'll be complaining that water is wet.
The world's changed from when grammar and secondary schools were the norm. Most parents want their children to go to university. They expect an education system that is oriented towards them achieving that result. They are very negative towards any system that discriminates against their children.
I would hope that if we have learnt that the Grammars have a role to play in academic education (and maybe social mobility - all open to discussion) and that for those who are not endowed with academic ability, they have other skills. Maybe they are late developers, maybe they have strengths in other directions, but by now and with the learning we have from the previous incarnation of Grammar Schools, is it really the case that the only alternative is a return to Secondary Moderns? Surely we now know how to educate, value, encourage, nurture and challenge the non academic. Regardless of the existence of Grammar Schools, we are still going to have to deal with academic and non academic children.
If hand on heart you believe our current system is the best imaginable for the nations children, then that is fine. If it isn't, shouldn't we push for the best imaginable for all children?
Political Betting (Team GB Gold) dot com ....
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
I think we have to become a bit more elitist, we have to accept that 50% going to uni is a mistake, we need to make sure when children leave school they have the skills to start work straightaway.
Why not have academic selections within schools? I think they call it setting.
Looking at OGH's twitter feed he looks a bit obsessed to say the least, more like a breathing dragon every time someone mentions "Corbyn".
28 tweets dumping Corbyn in the last 48 hours, who is he ? Trump ?
Similarly, when asked their views on grammar schools, they never consider that they or their children might be among the losers.
This can result in the 'setting' turning into setting on the odd one out who 'over achieves'
The 1990's, but only in the western world.
The point is that it *isn't* self-sufficient in food.
I dud a quick back of the envelope which came up with 91% self sufficient (62.7/69).
Checking I seem to have underestimated Irish agriculture output.
For example, Beef self sufficiency in RoI is 640% ie enough beef for 32 million people.
For Sheep it is 370%. For pork 195%.
So I reckon it is fair to say that the British Isles is self sufficient in terms of being able to adequately (if boringly) feed the population.
Given a population of 70 million that shows how agricultural productivity has improved over the 20th century.
pass the smelling salts ....
But, what you point to is a good thing. People imagine themselves doing well, rather than badly, and that leads people to take the risk of setting up their own business, exploring new places, inventing new devices.
Back then for the western world it was all peace and prosperity.
I brung you a massage:
The Scrooming Ogles has a drodful iccent when he spooks French!
Please name another western developed country with an 11+ and better results than England/Wales. Finland? No selective schools but it seems more selective in who it allows to teach: http://oph.fi/english/education_system/basic_education. Scotland? No selective schools either.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Drips unite! Mind you they are wet.
How wonderfully simple, it's obvious that we need just two types of schools to cater for the needs of these different and easily identifiable species.
I can perfectly understand that if one is tweeting every 90 minutes on average about the same issue or person one is to assume that he is obsessed with it.
If OGH starts to tweet about how much crap he thinks Corbyn is at 4 in the morning, then I would be slightly concerned.
Personally I believe in the cut-off point being GCSE (16 yrs), at which point people could go to a 'prep' school for another two years thereafter to pursue a university degree, or go to a focused FE college for 3 years vocational, technology, craft etc. qualifications. This would mean personal choice played a big role.
I don't agree that failure to attain a Grammar School place results in inevitable failure and abandonment. I am putting forward the concept that there are additional ways in which that cohort can be valued, nurtured and see themselves with wonderful futures.
The old system of Secondary Moderns is not acceptable, a new system could well be nirvana for these children.
If we are not intellectually capable of seeing past historic failures then we may as well give up on all children. We would have no future
I know, because he regularly sends me emails at 3/4 am.
And occasionally when Mike's not paying attention, when he thinks he's composing an email, he's actually sending me a text.