''What is the real difference between a secondary modern and a bad comprehensive that nobody who can afford a better schools associated house price uses?''
In terms of outcomes, not much, I grant you
The kids at the bad comp aren't wearing a T shirt saying 'not clever enough for your local grammar' however. They just go to the school everybody goes to and of itself it says nothing about their educational standing.
And that is important. It's important because people can be predatory and competitive. For one thing, Parents of successful, clever children like humiliating less successful kids in their social network.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Labour "in favour" of comprehensives? Abbott sends her kids to comprehensives, right?
Irrelevant, unless Abbott makes Labour policy on Education.
"But where will the Prime Minister find the fiercest opposition? The only people who are emphatically against grammar schools turns out to be in this survey those with doctorates. Nearly half of PhDs surveyed (48 per cent) oppose the idea, with only 30 per cent so far in favour."
Quite. This is ideology vs average voter territory.
It's one of those issues where it depends how the question is put. Ask if you like grammar schools and lots of people think "well-behaved studious places, good". Ask if you like selection at 11 with a better than even chance that your kid will go to an inferior school and the response is different. Also, people who care a lot about the issue are almost all anti.
Precisely. (Almost) All parents support grammar schools, until their kids fail to get into them, which in the normal selective model is going to be 85% or so. I grew up in a selective borough, and passed the 11+. Only one other member of my primary school year did. When the results came out, my parents got blanked by the other parents whose kids failed the 11+, their bitterness was so strong.
So Mrs May, if you want to pursue a policy that will alienate 85% of parents, please proceed.
The European Union needs a military headquarters to work towards a common military force, the Commission president has told MEPs in Strasbourg.
I'll say this: UKIP (Farage) has been saying for a few years that the ultimate aim of the EU is one nation under one army. We were warned and chose to disregard it as improbable or UKIP talking arrant nonsense.
Well we can't ignore it any more.
PS: I am no longer a member of UKIP and haven't been for a year.
The European Union needs a military headquarters to work towards a common military force, the Commission president has told MEPs in Strasbourg.
I'll say this: UKIP (Farage) has been saying for a few years that the ultimate aim of the EU is one nation under one army. We were warned and chose to disregard it as improbable or UKIP talking arrant nonsense.
Well we can't ignore it any more.
PS: I am no longer a member of UKIP and haven't been for a year.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
People in the DC area buy houses by school catchment area. It is one of the first things informed buyers ask - even DINKs, and it is printed on most sales collateral. The same house on the same sized lot one street over can be worth $100k less if it is on the wrong side of the catchment area.
And changing the catchment area to include low income housing only fixes the problem temporarily until the housing market adapts, and those low income houses are bought up, torn down and rebuilt if they lie in the catchment area of a 'good' school.
PS The only way grammar schools can fix this problem is if they don't have a fixed catchment area or, if they do, that catchment area covers all the school districts of a particular administrative area, say a town. But their benefits to bright poor kids will always come at the price of stripping both the good and the bad schools of some of their brightest students.
"But where will the Prime Minister find the fiercest opposition? The only people who are emphatically against grammar schools turns out to be in this survey those with doctorates. Nearly half of PhDs surveyed (48 per cent) oppose the idea, with only 30 per cent so far in favour."
Quite. This is ideology vs average voter territory.
It's one of those issues where it depends how the question is put. Ask if you like grammar schools and lots of people think "well-behaved studious places, good". Ask if you like selection at 11 with a better than even chance that your kid will go to an inferior school and the response is different. Also, people who care a lot about the issue are almost all anti.
Precisely. (Almost) All parents support grammar schools, until their kids fail to get into them, which in the normal selective model is going to be 85% or so. I grew up in a selective borough, and passed the 11+. Only one other member of my primary school year did. When the results came out, my parents got blanked by the other parents whose kids failed the 11+, their bitterness was so strong.
So Mrs May, if you want to pursue a policy that will alienate 85% of parents, please proceed
Indeed.
In fact, it can be split up into three tranches of children: the top 20% and bottom 20% (both extremes of the bell curve) and the rest.
This policy will help the top 20% who may get into the new grammar schools, do little for the majority middle group (except perhaps reduce funding for their schools) and will make no difference to the bottom 20%.
Since the latter group needs most of the help, it seems a pointless diversion.
Now, if she'd announced this as part of a well-considered education policy for all, that would be a different matter.
But leaving that aside, there are other factors. Firstly, aspiration: many voters will aspire for their children to get into the grammar school and do what it takes for them to get in. Aspiration is generally a vote-winner. Secondly, the move will be popular with many of the middle-class commetrariat, meaning the mood music in the media might not match (but may influence) the public's mood.
I think he can do it. The temptation to ignore these types of polls as outliers is exactly the same kind of thing that happened in EUref. Before brexit we had seen a 50-50 vote for the Austrian far-right/populist candidate in a two round system. Don't see how it's impossible for Trump to go further.
Also I don't think people really believe Trump is going to cause WW3 etc, for the majority of Americans there is probably little to fear directly from Trump. He's a narcissist not a fascist. Lower turnout than expected amongst dems, plus higher turnout amongst the 'left behind' could easily nudge him over the edge.
"But where will the Prime Minister find the fiercest opposition? The only people who are emphatically against grammar schools turns out to be in this survey those with doctorates. Nearly half of PhDs surveyed (48 per cent) oppose the idea, with only 30 per cent so far in favour."
Quite. This is ideology vs average voter territory.
It's one of those issues where it depends how the question is put. Ask if you like grammar schools and lots of people think "well-behaved studious places, good". Ask if you like selection at 11 with a better than even chance that your kid will go to an inferior school and the response is different. Also, people who care a lot about the issue are almost all anti.
FWIW, my brief column on the issue has had a uniformly supportive response:
Perhaps you could enlighten as to why after roughly four decades of the comprehensive system no government of either colour or stripe has been able to turn comprehensives into "well-behaved studious places, good"?
Lol the private school near me seems to have worse results than the state ones !
The upper-middle classes who couldn't get their kids into grammar schools tend to send their kids to non-selective private schools.
No grammar school near me. I'll be honest, if I had kids I'd try and get them into a local grammar (Though none exist) rather than the local private school (It seems sub par) even if the money was not a consideration...
The debate on grammar schools is a very bad, unnecessary own goal by Mrs May. It is impossible to achieve before GE2020 because:- 1. Impossible for enough grammar schools to be setup 2. Impossible for them to materially change outcomes for 10%+ of children. This is a policy which would only benefit 2025+ A time when she will probably have retired from it all.
So why waste political capital and expose herself to all that? I agree with those below that say that the PM should be primarily focused on Brexit. Utter madness to do otherwise. Does she have such poor advisors around her?
PS - I would like some form of grammar schools introduced but this is the worst way of trying to introduce it. It has to start with a realistic plan and a GE election mandate.
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
I think your post illustrates another risk that May is taking: that her initiative will be over-sold or will raise expectations that won't be met. All she plans to do is relax the current restriction on opening new grammar schools. It will then be up to your local council (or anyone who want to open their own free grammar school). Most won't be interested; many won't need a new secondary school anyway. No-one has suggested turning existing schools into grammars so in reality, even if passed, her proposal will actually change very little.
Yes. Any new Grammar would be a new build. I think the proposal is in reality a modest one which has been blown up out of proportion by its opponents. We may see an addition 50 - 100 Grammars, not a wholesale reversal of the 1960s/70s policy.
Didn't May herself say that every school would have the chance to be a grammar? So it wouldn't have to be a new build?
It would not have to be a new build but I find it hard to envisage in practice a comprehensive turning itself back into a grammar - each year a selective intake would replace the previous all-ability intake. It would all be too awkward and I wonder whether heads would have the stomach for it.
The debate on grammar schools is a very bad, unnecessary own goal by Mrs May. It is impossible to achieve before GE2020:- 1. Enough grammar schools to be setup 2. For them to materially change outcomes for 10%+ of children This is a policy which would only benefit 2025+ A time when she will probably have retired from it all.
So why waste political capital and expose herself to all that? I agree with those below that say that the PM should be primarily focused on Brexit. Utter madness to do otherwise. Does she have such poor advisors around her?
PS - I would like some form of grammar schools introduced but this is the worst way of trying to introduce it. It has to start with a realistic plan and a GE election mandate.
I thought long-termism was a good thing? Kinda agree on the whole mandate point though.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
I think your post illustrates another risk that May is taking: that her initiative will be over-sold or will raise expectations that won't be met. All she plans to do is relax the current restriction on opening new grammar schools. It will then be up to your local council (or anyone who want to open their own free grammar school). Most won't be interested; many won't need a new secondary school anyway. No-one has suggested turning existing schools into grammars so in reality, even if passed, her proposal will actually change very little.
Yes. Any new Grammar would be a new build. I think the proposal is in reality a modest one which has been blown up out of proportion by its opponents. We may see an addition 50 - 100 Grammars, not a wholesale reversal of the 1960s/70s policy.
Didn't May herself say that every school would have the chance to be a grammar? So it wouldn't have to be a new build?
It would not have to be a new build but I find it hard to envisage in practice a comprehensive turning itself back into a grammar - each year a selective intake would replace the previous all-ability intake. It would all be too awkward and I wonder whether heads would have the stomach for it.
The transition doesn't seem awkward, although I do question the rationale behind all schools being grammars!
"But where will the Prime Minister find the fiercest opposition? The only people who are emphatically against grammar schools turns out to be in this survey those with doctorates. Nearly half of PhDs surveyed (48 per cent) oppose the idea, with only 30 per cent so far in favour."
Quite. This is ideology vs average voter territory.
.
Precisely. (Almost) All parents support grammar schools, until their kids fail to get into them, which in the normal selective model is going to be 85% or so. I grew up in a selective borough, and passed the 11+. Only one other member of my primary school year did. When the results came out, my parents got blanked by the other parents whose kids failed the 11+, their bitterness was so strong.
So Mrs May, if you want to pursue a policy that will alienate 85% of parents, please proceed
Indeed.
In fact, it can be split up into three tranches of children: the top 20% and bottom 20% (both extremes of the bell curve) and the rest.
This policy will help the top 20% who may get into the new grammar schools, do little for the majority middle group (except perhaps reduce funding for their schools) and will make no difference to the bottom 20%.
Since the latter group needs most of the help, it seems a pointless diversion.
Now, if she'd announced this as part of a well-considered education policy for all, that would be a different matter.
But leaving that aside, there are other factors. Firstly, aspiration: many voters will aspire for their children to get into the grammar school and do what it takes for them to get in. Aspiration is generally a vote-winner. Secondly, the move will be popular with many of the middle-class commetrariat, meaning the mood music in the media might not match (but may influence) the public's mood.
There may also be a discrepancy here between what people say they support and what they really support. I live in a selective borough: many parents I know are opposed to grammar schools - yet are very keen for their own children to have a grammar school education and in fact moved here for the schools. In fact, the only parents who seem to be able to openly and unapologetically say they support selection that I know are from working class backgrounds.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
It meams only those families who can afford to move into the catchment area of the good school can send their children there. We should completely do away with catchment areas for this reason. Its just another way the middle classes are able to game the system.
Left and right should ask for equal rights for those who are likely to become electricians or plumbers rather than astrophysicists or quantum chemists. Peter Lilley - possibly an unlikely opponent - criticised May's grammar schools announcement and cited this reason; i.e., that UK academic education is quite good but its technical/vocational education is hopeless.
This is a key point. We make the mistake of treating vocational training as the option for academic failures - as if only the thickos become tradesmen. We need to enable vocational colleges to compete for pupils, too. Yes, there will be a stream left at the bottom - these, sadly, are untrainable/unemployable. But let's not tar the non-academic option with this brush.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
Lots of it is very funny gossip - it's surely a morale thing right now with only TwitNerds enjoying the feeding frenzy. Hillary's health lies caught on camera realy hit the mainstream.
I think he can do it. The temptation to ignore these types of polls as outliers is exactly the same kind of thing that happened in EUref. Before brexit we had seen a 50-50 vote for the Austrian far-right/populist candidate in a two round system. Don't see how it's impossible for Trump to go further.
Also I don't think people really believe Trump is going to cause WW3 etc, for the majority of Americans there is probably little to fear directly from Trump. He's a narcissist not a fascist. Lower turnout than expected amongst dems, plus higher turnout amongst the 'left behind' could easily nudge him over the edge.
If anyone is not going to vote, it will be the centre who have no identity politics to play. Mostly non-liberal (US sense) straight white men with higher education, Asians who don't feel discriminated against, and educated white women of a certain age (i.e. less than 60, but older than 35) who are doing well enough they don't think a woman president at any price is worth it.
Far lefties and identity politics groups, the disenfranchised and the conservative right will vote, probably in higher numbers than normal.
It will be a strange electorate, with highly unpredictable results.
PS And how this strange electorate effects the outcome will vary from State to State. I have no confidence that polling houses are adapting their electorate models to this likely reality.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
I'm very much undecided on grammar schools. I went to a comprehensive and did absolutely fine but I'm also very keen for my kids to go to the local Royal School. But I also think the local non-grammar schools are decent.
I think it's absolutely natural that you want your kids to go to the best available school. But there will be areas where the alternatives are pretty bad, and most kids will end up there.
I can see a case in principle for saying that brilliant kids should go to brilliant schools and dim or lazy kids should go to undemanding schools (though you can argue the opposite - I had a very undemanding school and got a PhD anyway, maybe dim kids need more help not less?). But anyway, in real life kids are better on some days than others and develop at different speeds. To determine a life-changing issue based on what your kids are like on a particular day when they're 11 is surely silly? If they go to the same school and get set into mostly lower groups then if they put on a spurt they can easily move up (and vice versa). Separating them into different institutions altogether seems far too rigid.
The debate on grammar schools is a very bad, unnecessary own goal by Mrs May. It is impossible to achieve before GE2020 because:- 1. Impossible for enough grammar schools to be setup 2. Impossible for them to materially change outcomes for 10%+ of children. This is a policy which would only benefit 2025+ A time when she will probably have retired from it all.
So why waste political capital and expose herself to all that? I agree with those below that say that the PM should be primarily focused on Brexit. Utter madness to do otherwise. Does she have such poor advisors around her?
PS - I would like some form of grammar schools introduced but this is the worst way of trying to introduce it. It has to start with a realistic plan and a GE election mandate.
There's no realistic plan for brexit, she has to distract the voters and placate the right while hoping something lucky happens.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
Yes, that is one of the extraordinary aspects of what has been as extraordinary contest all along. The expectation was that, by now, the super well-organised, well-financed, very professional and experienced Clinton campaign would be pulling smoothly ahead, and that the amateurish and naive Trump campaign would be falling apart. Seems to be the other way round.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
I wish Theresa May had said that. I wish she had a better solution than grammars, too.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
Yes, that is one of the extraordinary aspects of what has been as extraordinary contest all along. The expectation was that, by now, the super well-organised, well-financed, very professional and experienced Clinton campaign would be pulling smoothly ahead, and that the amateurish and naive Trump campaign would be falling apart. Seems to be the other way round.
The debate on grammar schools is a very bad, unnecessary own goal by Mrs May. It is impossible to achieve before GE2020 because:- 1. Impossible for enough grammar schools to be setup 2. Impossible for them to materially change outcomes for 10%+ of children. This is a policy which would only benefit 2025+ A time when she will probably have retired from it all.
So why waste political capital and expose herself to all that? I agree with those below that say that the PM should be primarily focused on Brexit. Utter madness to do otherwise. Does she have such poor advisors around her?
PS - I would like some form of grammar schools introduced but this is the worst way of trying to introduce it. It has to start with a realistic plan and a GE election mandate.
There's no realistic plan for brexit, she has to distract the voters and placate the right while hoping something lucky happens.
No plan at the moment, or no plausible plan at all?
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
People in the DC area buy houses by school catchment area. It is one of the first things informed buyers ask - even DINKs, and it is printed on most sales collateral. The same house on the same sized lot one street over can be worth $100k less if it is on the wrong side of the catchment area.
And changing the catchment area to include low income housing only fixes the problem temporarily until the housing market adapts, and those low income houses are bought up, torn down and rebuilt if they lie in the catchment area of a 'good' school.
PS The only way grammar schools can fix this problem is if they don't have a fixed catchment area or, if they do, that catchment area covers all the school districts of a particular administrative area, say a town. But their benefits to bright poor kids will always come at the price of stripping both the good and the bad schools of some of their brightest students.
Yes it is complicated to organise a fair system because people find ways to game it quite quickly - because they are clever or they have the means to do so.
There is no simple panacea such as 'voucher system'. Two minutes of thinking would highlight the pitfalls of any one approach.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
People in the DC area buy houses by school catchment area. It is one of the first things informed buyers ask - even DINKs, and it is printed on most sales collateral. The same house on the same sized lot one street over can be worth $100k less if it is on the wrong side of the catchment area.
And changing the catchment area to include low income housing only fixes the problem temporarily until the housing market adapts, and those low income houses are bought up, torn down and rebuilt if they lie in the catchment area of a 'good' school.
PS The only way grammar schools can fix this problem is if they don't have a fixed catchment area or, if they do, that catchment area covers all the school districts of a particular administrative area, say a town. But their benefits to bright poor kids will always come at the price of stripping both the good and the bad schools of some of their brightest students.
Regularly rotating catchment areas seems like it could be a good way to encourage social cohesion and avoid sink estates.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
Yes, that is one of the extraordinary aspects of what has been as extraordinary contest all along. The expectation was that, by now, the super well-organised, well-financed, very professional and experienced Clinton campaign would be pulling smoothly ahead, and that the amateurish and naive Trump campaign would be falling apart. Seems to be the other way round.
It's tough to disguise poor health, ok Trump is older - but he has undenibly got alot more energy.
Also the Dem campaign has gone up its own fundament with some sort of cartoon frog anti-racist campaign that only Sanders supporters between 18 and 35 are going to remotely have a chance of understanding.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
It is very difficult for one party to win three successive Presidential elections. A decent Democratic candidate would have pulled it off, given how bad Trump is. But, the Democrats chose the one candidate who could lose to Trump.
The debate on grammar schools is a very bad, unnecessary own goal by Mrs May. It is impossible to achieve before GE2020 because:- 1. Impossible for enough grammar schools to be setup 2. Impossible for them to materially change outcomes for 10%+ of children. This is a policy which would only benefit 2025+ A time when she will probably have retired from it all.
So why waste political capital and expose herself to all that? I agree with those below that say that the PM should be primarily focused on Brexit. Utter madness to do otherwise. Does she have such poor advisors around her?
PS - I would like some form of grammar schools introduced but this is the worst way of trying to introduce it. It has to start with a realistic plan and a GE election mandate.
Why waste capital? How about because it's the right thing to do? Is that not reason enough?
And if as many suspect May has until 2025 before the biggest election threat to her, then now is the right time to start these reforms.
Time to get on Trump for a trade. This model - which is definitely a contributory driver to the market - is surely going to swing to 50-50 when updated with some post-pneumonia polls.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
People in the DC area buy houses by school catchment area. It is one of the first things informed buyers ask - even DINKs, and it is printed on most sales collateral. The same house on the same sized lot one street over can be worth $100k less if it is on the wrong side of the catchment area.
And changing the catchment area to include low income housing only fixes the problem temporarily until the housing market adapts, and those low income houses are bought up, torn down and rebuilt if they lie in the catchment area of a 'good' school.
PS The only way grammar schools can fix this problem is if they don't have a fixed catchment area or, if they do, that catchment area covers all the school districts of a particular administrative area, say a town. But their benefits to bright poor kids will always come at the price of stripping both the good and the bad schools of some of their brightest students.
Regularly rotating catchment areas seems like it could be a good way to encourage social cohesion and avoid sink estates.
Just let good schools expand and send the weaker schools to the wall. It is called the market.
Time to get on Trump for a trade. This model - which is definitely a contributory driver to the market - is surely going to swing to 50-50 when updated with some post-pneumonia polls.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
Thanks, Robert. A couple of years ago I started banging on about raising the minimum wage and a few months later Osborne declared his interest in seeing it rise to £7/h and eventually it turned into the NLV. Not saying they are related but a few of us made some persuasive arguments in favour and we know people from Downing Street have read the website in the past.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
It is very difficult for one party to win three successive Presidential elections. A decent Democratic candidate would have pulled it off, given how bad Trump is. But, the Democrats chose the one candidate who could lose to Trump.
Yes both Trump and Clinton have the easiest opponents to face.
We will now have a Trump Spike in polls over the next few days which will probably flatten a point or so below the peak - and that will run until September 26th.
If 538 don't show Florida, Nevada with 2% Trump Leads and Pennsylvania as TCTC (+-1) by Sunday evening UK time then Hillary has probably survived.
Another good indicator will be how irrational do the Mainstream Press/ TV stations get.
If Hillary appears weak (physically or mentally) in the debates then I think it will be all over.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
Yes, that is one of the extraordinary aspects of what has been as extraordinary contest all along. The expectation was that, by now, the super well-organised, well-financed, very professional and experienced Clinton campaign would be pulling smoothly ahead, and that the amateurish and naive Trump campaign would be falling apart. Seems to be the other way round.
It's tough to disguise poor health, ok Trump is older - but he has undenibly got alot more energy.
Also the Dem campaign has gone up its own fundament with some sort of cartoon frog anti-racist campaign that only Sanders supporters between 18 and 35 are going to remotely have a chance of understanding.
I thought the Colbert lampooning was a turning point in attitudes - I was really surprised by it.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
Yes, that is one of the extraordinary aspects of what has been as extraordinary contest all along. The expectation was that, by now, the super well-organised, well-financed, very professional and experienced Clinton campaign would be pulling smoothly ahead, and that the amateurish and naive Trump campaign would be falling apart. Seems to be the other way round.
From reading anecdotes the Clinton voter targeting operation is an upgrade on Obama's.
For each swing state the Obama machine polled around 5-10,000 people every week.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
I wouldn't say the bottom 75% are unemployable given we have a 95% employment rate. Maybe the bottom 10-20%
A large part of the problem is not just the education system but parenting. There is a world of difference between kids who start school already understanding basics of reading and have a love for it as loving parents have read to them every night since they were a babe ... and kids who turn up to school having essentially never seen a book before.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
People in the DC area buy houses by school catchment area. It is one of the first things informed buyers ask - even DINKs, and it is printed on most sales collateral. The same house on the same sized lot one street over can be worth $100k less if it is on the wrong side of the catchment area.
And changing the catchment area to include low income housing only fixes the problem temporarily until the housing market adapts, and those low income houses are bought up, torn down and rebuilt if they lie in the catchment area of a 'good' school.
PS The only way grammar schools can fix this problem is if they don't have a fixed catchment area or, if they do, that catchment area covers all the school districts of a particular administrative area, say a town. But their benefits to bright poor kids will always come at the price of stripping both the good and the bad schools of some of their brightest students.
Regularly rotating catchment areas seems like it could be a good way to encourage social cohesion and avoid sink estates.
Just let good schools expand and send the weaker schools to the wall. It is called the market.
Tried with Patrick but didn't get a response.
We have a good school with high demand but we are waiting for the good school to expand. Do children just sit on a waiting list for a few years?
The bad schools. What happens to the kids in them when they go to the wall?
An additional question. What happens if a good school got really big - because it did well in the past - then went bad because of a new head. Does it just go to the wall with the 1000s of pupils inside?
The debate on grammar schools is a very bad, unnecessary own goal by Mrs May. It is impossible to achieve before GE2020 because:- 1. Impossible for enough grammar schools to be setup 2. Impossible for them to materially change outcomes for 10%+ of children. This is a policy which would only benefit 2025+ A time when she will probably have retired from it all.
So why waste political capital and expose herself to all that? I agree with those below that say that the PM should be primarily focused on Brexit. Utter madness to do otherwise. Does she have such poor advisors around her?
PS - I would like some form of grammar schools introduced but this is the worst way of trying to introduce it. It has to start with a realistic plan and a GE election mandate.
There's no realistic plan for brexit, she has to distract the voters and placate the right while hoping something lucky happens.
There can be a realistic plan for Brexit. But it starts with the person at the top having a clear view of what has to be done and selecting good advisors around her. The grammar school debacle sadly gives an indication that this is not the case. Perhaps Mrs May was given the benefit of the doubt on her ability to tackle a big issue? Immigration is an example of this. This is a target which she never achieved. She had no realistic plan to achieve the target yet the target remains in place. Could it be because she is a good micro manager of the detail but she lacks the Leadership expertise to drive through the level of activity that immigration/brexit requires? An able departmental Head but not a good CEO?
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
You don't think comprehensive schools might be partly responsible for creating that underclass? It seems a bit of a coincidence that both started to come into existence at roughly the same time.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
It is very difficult for one party to win three successive Presidential elections. A decent Democratic candidate would have pulled it off, given how bad Trump is. But, the Democrats chose the one candidate who could lose to Trump.
Yes both Trump and Clinton have the easiest opponents to face.
We will now have a Trump Spike in polls over the next few days which will probably flatten a point or so below the peak - and that will run until September 26th.
If 538 don't show Florida, Nevada with 2% Trump Leads and Pennsylvania as TCTC (+-1) by Sunday evening UK time then Hillary has probably survived.
Another good indicator will be how irrational do the Mainstream Press/ TV stations get.
If Hillary appears weak (physically or mentally) in the debates then I think it will be all over.
My prediction of President Trump nominating Sarah Palin to SCOTUS could still come to pass.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
I wouldn't say the bottom 75% are unemployable given we have a 95% employment rate. Maybe the bottom 10-20%
A large part of the problem is not just the education system but parenting. There is a world of difference between kids who start school already understanding basics of reading and have a love for it as loving parents have read to them every night since they were a babe ... and kids who turn up to school having essentially never seen a book before.
Or indeed kids who are doted upon by parents and the kids of crackheads who not only don't have a parent who reads to them or any books in the house, but who have to find their own food and clothes, and get themselves to school because the parent is completely out of it.
Not all schools are created equal, as some have many more of this type of student than others, at not fault of the student or the school/teachers.
For whatever reason, as a nation we want around 50% of young people to attend university. Therefore, that 50% need to have a school education to prepare them for university. The other 50% don't. So, if you are going to have grammar schools, they should cater for the 'academic' 50%.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
People in the DC area buy houses by school catchment area. It is one of the first things informed buyers ask - even DINKs, and it is printed on most sales collateral. The same house on the same sized lot one street over can be worth $100k less if it is on the wrong side of the catchment area.
And changing the catchment area to include low income housing only fixes the problem temporarily until the housing market adapts, and those low income houses are bought up, torn down and rebuilt if they lie in the catchment area of a 'good' school.
PS The only way grammar schools can fix this problem is if they don't have a fixed catchment area or, if they do, that catchment area covers all the school districts of a particular administrative area, say a town. But their benefits to bright poor kids will always come at the price of stripping both the good and the bad schools of some of their brightest students.
Regularly rotating catchment areas seems like it could be a good way to encourage social cohesion and avoid sink estates.
Just let good schools expand and send the weaker schools to the wall. It is called the market.
Tried with Patrick but didn't get a response.
We have a good school with high demand but we are waiting for the good school to expand. Do children just sit on a waiting list for a few years?
The bad schools. What happens to the kids in them when they go to the wall?
An additional question. What happens if a good school got really big - because it did well in the past - then went bad because of a new head. Does it just go to the wall with the 1000s of pupils inside?
You're looking at the cart before the horse.
Supply and demand means the bad school can't and won't go bust until there is a better school taking the kids away from it. The reason a bad school would fail is lack of demand.
What is the main argument against sticking with streaming within Comp schools? The fact that those that want to work hard are still held back by misbehavers?
Wouldn't a better option be to select by behaviour rather than ability? Make expelling students far simpler. Separate schools for those who have been expelled with extra funding to allow higher number of teachers (and better paid to help attract them) so that discipline can be enforced and they don't become lawless/rundown etc. Good behaviour on behalf of the students means they can re-enter the 'regular' schools.
It would only work if you give extra funding to these 'expelled schools' so that they remain functioning high-discipline schools and not criminal breeding grounds.
Paid for by general tax increases (I think most parents would pay a bit more tax if it meant they knew their kids were going to attend a school of well-behaved children/less risk of bullying etc).
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
You don't think comprehensive schools might be partly responsible for creating that underclass? It seems a bit of a coincidence that both started to come into existence at roughly the same time.
I just think it reflects the changing nature of the workplace. We've always had people at the margins of employability. A lot of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs have simply disappeared.
Our local A8 immigrants knock the surly British teens out of the job market by virtue of being better qualified, harder working and frankly, more pleasant.
The thread is just Mike Smithson, former liberal Democrat, venting against a politician pushing a proposal he profoundly disagrees with. Corbyn's form was piss poor as usual. The article itself contains little substance.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
You don't think comprehensive schools might be partly responsible for creating that underclass? It seems a bit of a coincidence that both started to come into existence at roughly the same time.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
You don't think comprehensive schools might be partly responsible for creating that underclass? It seems a bit of a coincidence that both started to come into existence at roughly the same time.
No. It was the failure of our education system to deliver appropriate education for the bottom 10% to 20%. It never adjusted to the loss of "proper" apprenticships. The previous Labour govt simply allowed the economy to import the workers and increased the benefits to the unemployable UK people.
On topic, I think Jezza and Theresa are both poor at PMQs. They are not natural speakers but are poor for different reasons. They both need a script to mangle, but Corbyn should have the edge because he asks the questions.
May rushes her words because she's nervous. Corbyn tries to imply he's cleverer than he is; he should stick to 'cat sat on mat' questions. May should sit back and not try so hard. She doesn't answer the question (no PM does) but she makes it obvious she isn't going to. They both try to force the conclusions rather than let the words speak for themselves.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
You don't think comprehensive schools might be partly responsible for creating that underclass? It seems a bit of a coincidence that both started to come into existence at roughly the same time.
The underclass, if that's what people want to call it, has always been with us. The type of work that pulled no-qualifications people out of it - essentially physical labour based - is hardly with us any longer. It has nothing to do with comprehensive schools.
The thread is just Mike Smithson, former liberal Democrat, venting against a politician pushing a proposal he profoundly disagrees with. Corbyn's form was piss poor as usual. The article itself contains little substance.
Even if you're right it does suggest that May is sowing the seeds of a Lib Dem revival.
The thread is just Mike Smithson, former liberal Democrat, venting against a politician pushing a proposal he profoundly disagrees with. Corbyn's form was piss poor as usual. The article itself contains little substance.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
Yes, that is one of the extraordinary aspects of what has been as extraordinary contest all along. The expectation was that, by now, the super well-organised, well-financed, very professional and experienced Clinton campaign would be pulling smoothly ahead, and that the amateurish and naive Trump campaign would be falling apart. Seems to be the other way round.
It's tough to disguise poor health, ok Trump is older - but he has undenibly got alot more energy.
Also the Dem campaign has gone up its own fundament with some sort of cartoon frog anti-racist campaign that only Sanders supporters between 18 and 35 are going to remotely have a chance of understanding.
I thought the Colbert lampooning was a turning point in attitudes - I was really surprised by it.
Plato, thanks for pointing that out. I have pretty much stopped watching Colbert as his political wit is usually so one-sided. That he should have turned so brutally and effectively on Hillary this weekend is indeed quite something.
The thread is just Mike Smithson, former liberal Democrat, venting against a politician pushing a proposal he profoundly disagrees with. Corbyn's form was piss poor as usual. The article itself contains little substance.
Even if you're right it does suggest that May is sowing the seeds of a Lib Dem revival.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
You don't think comprehensive schools might be partly responsible for creating that underclass? It seems a bit of a coincidence that both started to come into existence at roughly the same time.
No. It was the failure of our education system to deliver appropriate education for the bottom 10% to 20%. It never adjusted to the loss of "proper" apprenticships. The previous Labour govt simply allowed the economy to import the workers and increased the benefits to the unemployable UK people.
I trained school leavers while waiting for my DV. This was in the Forest of Dean. I don't shock easily, but they'd been allowed to leave school while being essentially innumerate and semi-literate. They had no work or basic social skills (eye contact, punctuality, concentration). It was a real eye-opener. They were doomed, but didn't appreciate that fact.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
Thanks, Robert. A couple of years ago I started banging on about raising the minimum wage and a few months later Osborne declared his interest in seeing it rise to £7/h and eventually it turned into the NLV. Not saying they are related but a few of us made some persuasive arguments in favour and we know people from Downing Street have read the website in the past.
Max, can you repost your suggestion or perhaps link to it? I missed it when first posted. Thank you!
The thread is just Mike Smithson, former liberal Democrat, venting against a politician pushing a proposal he profoundly disagrees with. Corbyn's form was piss poor as usual. The article itself contains little substance.
There are surely better ways of making life better for capable poor kids than grammars.
1. compulsory streaming
2. Stronger protection of those who want to learn from those who don;t. Abolishing this nonsense about the bully or trouble maker as victim.
1 dosent work without 2 as the bully or troublemaker can still intimidate them or attack them in the corridor or playground or PE etc.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
In the UK, we have a major problem. We have approximately two million unemployed people, and a large number of people classified as sick. We have employers who would rather hire Poles and Latvians and Romanians than our own people.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
You don't think comprehensive schools might be partly responsible for creating that underclass? It seems a bit of a coincidence that both started to come into existence at roughly the same time.
I just think it reflects the changing nature of the workplace. We've always had people at the margins of employability. A lot of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs have simply disappeared.
Our local A8 immigrants knock the surly British teens out of the job market by virtue of being better qualified, harder working and frankly, more pleasant.
Harder working and more pleasant are the two more important components. The issue we have here (with apologies to the learned RCS) is mainly cultural, not educational.
Tough nut to crack, too; we can't simply force behaviour change by wholesale withdrawal of benefits, but equally, if we have a system that pays people to be unemployed, we will always have the unemployed with us.
He is unruffled and does not get into the stupid comments we are used to with one trying to outdo the other. Sorry Mt Brind but he is to the neutral beginning to look a leader. Interesting to see how Newcastle Blakelow votes tomorrow, will there be another huge swing to the Lib Dems?
Mr. Taffys, the two are not mutually exclusive, particularly if May underwhelms and Labour goes into the election with a leader 80% of the PLP cannot stand and who thinks being a unilateralist friend of Hamas who believes in totally open borders will chime with the British public.
I agree with many of posters on this thread - the return to educational selection is a potential elephant trap for the Tories and a massive uniting force for Labour. May needs to ensure that the first round of selection occurs after the next election. When the majority of parents see their children shunted off to secondary modern schools, it's going to cause vast resentment that will fester for years. Corbyn could ride the wave of that resentment straight into Downing Street.
My guess is that grammars and other hat tips to the right will focus a lot of Labour minds. And more and more Labour members will become more focused on winning the election. That will not be good news for Corbyn. The Tories are one of his Achilles heels.
When will you focus on Labour winning.
Oh I forgot Dave is least bad option compared to Jezza
Court News Black Lives Matter protesters are all given conditional discharges
You what?
Please please can the CPS appeal that? If every stupid idiot now thinks that shutting down a major airport for a day warrants only a slap on the wrist, this is going to happen every day somewhere.
I hope the operator and their customer sue them in the civil courts for the cost of the disruption, will be millions!
Court News Black Lives Matter protesters are all given conditional discharges
You what?
Please please can the CPS appeal that? If every stupid idiot now thinks that shutting down a major airport for a day warrants only a slap on the wrist, this is going to happen every day somewhere.
I hope the operator and their customer sue them in the civil courts for the cost of the disruption, will be millions!
CPS only had them prosecuted for simple trespass, which they all pled guilty to. So the simple answer is no, and the court basically gave them the punish for the crime they admitted.
I'm very much undecided on grammar schools. I went to a comprehensive and did absolutely fine but I'm also very keen for my kids to go to the local Royal School. But I also think the local non-grammar schools are decent.
I think it's absolutely natural that you want your kids to go to the best available school. But there will be areas where the alternatives are pretty bad, and most kids will end up there.
I can see a case in principle for saying that brilliant kids should go to brilliant schools and dim or lazy kids should go to undemanding schools (though you can argue the opposite - I had a very undemanding school and got a PhD anyway, maybe dim kids need more help not less?). But anyway, in real life kids are better on some days than others and develop at different speeds. To determine a life-changing issue based on what your kids are like on a particular day when they're 11 is surely silly? If they go to the same school and get set into mostly lower groups then if they put on a spurt they can easily move up (and vice versa). Separating them into different institutions altogether seems far too rigid.
A lot of kids will be 10 when the call is made. I don't think there is any doubting that grammars are great for those that get into them. Going to one undoubtedly made a huge difference to me, though I think above all it was my parents, their expectations and their support who were pivotal. The issue with grammars is the 80% who do not get into them. If she was really convinced about the grammar system then surely that's where May should have started.
I also think that she has done the current state system a huge disservice. It has improved hugely over the last 20 years under both Labour and Tory control.
Lee Fang Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
From the outside it looks like the dem campaign is spiralling out of control...??
Yes, that is one of the extraordinary aspects of what has been as extraordinary contest all along. The expectation was that, by now, the super well-organised, well-financed, very professional and experienced Clinton campaign would be pulling smoothly ahead, and that the amateurish and naive Trump campaign would be falling apart. Seems to be the other way round.
It's tough to disguise poor health, ok Trump is older - but he has undenibly got alot more energy.
Also the Dem campaign has gone up its own fundament with some sort of cartoon frog anti-racist campaign that only Sanders supporters between 18 and 35 are going to remotely have a chance of understanding.
I thought the Colbert lampooning was a turning point in attitudes - I was really surprised by it.
Plato, thanks for pointing that out. I have pretty much stopped watching Colbert as his political wit is usually so one-sided. That he should have turned so brutally and effectively on Hillary this weekend is indeed quite something.
I normally ignore him entirely - I was tweeted it by Entertainment Weekly who thought it was a big thing. That's stuck it on the radar of a whole bunch of non-Dems.
Comments
In terms of outcomes, not much, I grant you
The kids at the bad comp aren't wearing a T shirt saying 'not clever enough for your local grammar' however. They just go to the school everybody goes to and of itself it says nothing about their educational standing.
And that is important. It's important because people can be predatory and competitive. For one thing, Parents of successful, clever children like humiliating less successful kids in their social network.
So Mrs May, if you want to pursue a policy that will alienate 85% of parents, please proceed.
FL (JMC)
Trump 46%
Clinton 42%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world
The European Union needs a military headquarters to work towards a common military force, the Commission president has told MEPs in Strasbourg.
I'll say this: UKIP (Farage) has been saying for a few years that the ultimate aim of the EU is one nation under one army. We were warned and chose to disregard it as improbable or UKIP talking arrant nonsense.
Well we can't ignore it any more.
PS: I am no longer a member of UKIP and haven't been for a year.
And changing the catchment area to include low income housing only fixes the problem temporarily until the housing market adapts, and those low income houses are bought up, torn down and rebuilt if they lie in the catchment area of a 'good' school.
PS The only way grammar schools can fix this problem is if they don't have a fixed catchment area or, if they do, that catchment area covers all the school districts of a particular administrative area, say a town. But their benefits to bright poor kids will always come at the price of stripping both the good and the bad schools of some of their brightest students.
In fact, it can be split up into three tranches of children: the top 20% and bottom 20% (both extremes of the bell curve) and the rest.
This policy will help the top 20% who may get into the new grammar schools, do little for the majority middle group (except perhaps reduce funding for their schools) and will make no difference to the bottom 20%.
Since the latter group needs most of the help, it seems a pointless diversion.
Now, if she'd announced this as part of a well-considered education policy for all, that would be a different matter.
But leaving that aside, there are other factors. Firstly, aspiration: many voters will aspire for their children to get into the grammar school and do what it takes for them to get in. Aspiration is generally a vote-winner. Secondly, the move will be popular with many of the middle-class commetrariat, meaning the mood music in the media might not match (but may influence) the public's mood.
@SkyData @PlatoSays Last Republican to win Florida & Ohio & lose - Richard Nixon in 1960: https://t.co/6x73mGPUOn
Colin Powell & mega Dem donor Jeffrey Leeds chat about how much the Clintons hate Obama (via newly leaked emails) https://t.co/6dEbD4AU3r
Also I don't think people really believe Trump is going to cause WW3 etc, for the majority of Americans there is probably little to fear directly from Trump. He's a narcissist not a fascist. Lower turnout than expected amongst dems, plus higher turnout amongst the 'left behind' could easily nudge him over the edge.
1. Impossible for enough grammar schools to be setup
2. Impossible for them to materially change outcomes for 10%+ of children.
This is a policy which would only benefit 2025+ A time when she will probably have retired from it all.
So why waste political capital and expose herself to all that? I agree with those below that say that the PM should be primarily focused on Brexit. Utter madness to do otherwise. Does she have such poor advisors around her?
PS - I would like some form of grammar schools introduced but this is the worst way of trying to introduce it. It has to start with a realistic plan and a GE election mandate.
Now, some of this is due to the tax and benefits system. But a lot of it is due to our education system failing a lot of our children. And in particular, it's failing the bottom 75% of academic achievers.
Simply bolting grammar schools onto our system will not make it better. Max had some excellent suggestions, which I hope someone in a position of power has read and is currently considerin. But our urgent priority as a nation must be stop creating an underclass of people who are largely unemployable.
I live in a selective borough: many parents I know are opposed to grammar schools - yet are very keen for their own children to have a grammar school education and in fact moved here for the schools. In fact, the only parents who seem to be able to openly and unapologetically say they support selection that I know are from working class backgrounds.
I can't believe the body double story made MSM!
Far lefties and identity politics groups, the disenfranchised and the conservative right will vote, probably in higher numbers than normal.
It will be a strange electorate, with highly unpredictable results.
PS And how this strange electorate effects the outcome will vary from State to State. I have no confidence that polling houses are adapting their electorate models to this likely reality.
I can see a case in principle for saying that brilliant kids should go to brilliant schools and dim or lazy kids should go to undemanding schools (though you can argue the opposite - I had a very undemanding school and got a PhD anyway, maybe dim kids need more help not less?). But anyway, in real life kids are better on some days than others and develop at different speeds. To determine a life-changing issue based on what your kids are like on a particular day when they're 11 is surely silly? If they go to the same school and get set into mostly lower groups then if they put on a spurt they can easily move up (and vice versa). Separating them into different institutions altogether seems far too rigid.
There is no simple panacea such as 'voucher system'. Two minutes of thinking would highlight the pitfalls of any one approach.
Also the Dem campaign has gone up its own fundament with some sort of cartoon frog anti-racist campaign that only Sanders supporters between 18 and 35 are going to remotely have a chance of understanding.
Hahaha
And if as many suspect May has until 2025 before the biggest election threat to her, then now is the right time to start these reforms.
We will now have a Trump Spike in polls over the next few days which will probably flatten a point or so below the peak - and that will run until September 26th.
If 538 don't show Florida, Nevada with 2% Trump Leads and Pennsylvania as TCTC (+-1) by Sunday evening UK time then Hillary has probably survived.
Another good indicator will be how irrational do the Mainstream Press/ TV stations get.
If Hillary appears weak (physically or mentally) in the debates then I think it will be all over.
For each swing state the Obama machine polled around 5-10,000 people every week.
A large part of the problem is not just the education system but parenting. There is a world of difference between kids who start school already understanding basics of reading and have a love for it as loving parents have read to them every night since they were a babe ... and kids who turn up to school having essentially never seen a book before.
We have a good school with high demand but we are waiting for the good school to expand. Do children just sit on a waiting list for a few years?
The bad schools. What happens to the kids in them when they go to the wall?
An additional question. What happens if a good school got really big - because it did well in the past - then went bad because of a new head. Does it just go to the wall with the 1000s of pupils inside?
Not all schools are created equal, as some have many more of this type of student than others, at not fault of the student or the school/teachers.
Junker's asked for Q&A suggestions on Twitter...
Edit
The Fox
#AskJuncker is Poland going to be the first place you'll invade with your new EU army?
Supply and demand means the bad school can't and won't go bust until there is a better school taking the kids away from it. The reason a bad school would fail is lack of demand.
Edited extra bit: got a link to the tweet?
Wouldn't a better option be to select by behaviour rather than ability? Make expelling students far simpler. Separate schools for those who have been expelled with extra funding to allow higher number of teachers (and better paid to help attract them) so that discipline can be enforced and they don't become lawless/rundown etc. Good behaviour on behalf of the students means they can re-enter the 'regular' schools.
It would only work if you give extra funding to these 'expelled schools' so that they remain functioning high-discipline schools and not criminal breeding grounds.
Paid for by general tax increases (I think most parents would pay a bit more tax if it meant they knew their kids were going to attend a school of well-behaved children/less risk of bullying etc).
Our local A8 immigrants knock the surly British teens out of the job market by virtue of being better qualified, harder working and frankly, more pleasant.
May rushes her words because she's nervous. Corbyn tries to imply he's cleverer than he is; he should stick to 'cat sat on mat' questions. May should sit back and not try so hard. She doesn't answer the question (no PM does) but she makes it obvious she isn't going to. They both try to force the conclusions rather than let the words speak for themselves.
Is there a secret plan to create an EU army? Claims from the leave side about moves to unify Europe’s armed forces are nothing more than fantasy
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/is-there-a-secret-plan-to-create-an-eu-army
Edited extra bit: Louise Mensch just RT'ed
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/andrew-gimsons-pmqs-sketch-may-offers-corbyn-an-undefended-target.html
The commentariat are starting to tear into Mrs May on this. On this Mike is correct. Andrew Neil said "best PMQs for Corbyn so far".
PS I am/was a supporter of grammar schools.
Plato, thanks for pointing that out. I have pretty much stopped watching Colbert as his political wit is usually so one-sided. That he should have turned so brutally and effectively on Hillary this weekend is indeed quite something.
#SouthCarolina, Trafalgar Group (R):
Trump 53 (+15)
Clinton 38
Johnson 3
Stein 1
https://t.co/gn6ax90Eqj
FYI Romney won SC by 11%
There seems to be some confusion as to whether the word "frown" relates to the forehead or the mouth:
http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/frowns.html
Tough nut to crack, too; we can't simply force behaviour change by wholesale withdrawal of benefits, but equally, if we have a system that pays people to be unemployed, we will always have the unemployed with us.
ANNOUNCE: We will have a major US trade agreement related publication tomorrow + more over the next few weeks. #TISA #TTIP #TPP #CETA
No May is sowing the seeds of a UKIP revival. She is UKIP's dream candidate.
Oh I forgot Dave is least bad option compared to Jezza
Please please can the CPS appeal that? If every stupid idiot now thinks that shutting down a major airport for a day warrants only a slap on the wrist, this is going to happen every day somewhere.
I hope the operator and their customer sue them in the civil courts for the cost of the disruption, will be millions!
I also think that she has done the current state system a huge disservice. It has improved hugely over the last 20 years under both Labour and Tory control.