It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Yes, which is why selective education is a perennial on PB. At least it is not Brexit*.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
I'm sorry my back story offends you. But it is the only one I have.
I'm particularly impressed by the way they still invite you back to the club after you cancelled your membership because it's 'in their interests'.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Working class parents (I don't mean middle class luvvies) love grammar schools, Labour should pledge to create one in every one of the seats they win.
Working class people aren't afraid of competition and failure, they live with it all their lives, its the poncy middle classes that are squeamish.
I find it quite amazing that so many in Labour, having taken advantage of grammar schools for themselves (and often their own kids), seem determined to pull up the ladder behind them.
Well, in fairness that's not true of Angela Rayner. She didn't take advantage of any part of her education.
Nor did Jeremy Corbyn of course, but for rather different reasons.
The Nazis did use chemical weapons against a Soviet tunnel complex in the aftermath of the battle of the Kerch peninsula in 1942.
The main reasons the Nazis did not use chemical weapons were because chemical weapons did not suit their war of manoeuvre system, not scruples about international conventions.
I thought it was because they didnt want them used in return, young Adolf having suffered from british chemical weapons in WW1 and not enjoying the experience
It really is about dancing on the head of a pin. The allies deployed 150 flamethrower tanks on D Day. Are we saying that petroleum jelly is not a chemical, or that oxidising is not a chemical reaction?
The Royal Air Force thought they were best at incendary bombing of civilians until Curtis LeMay upped the ante in Tokyo.
The MOAB bomb in Afghanistan is an interesting weapon. It seems to be designed to send a fatal shockwave through hardened complexes and tunnels. Surely the Afghan bomb is a bit of field testing for use against the North Koreans?
North Korea has a lot of long range artillary in bunkers. MOAB would seem to be the best counter weapon.
Of course it wasn't testing for NK. 1) The USAF has multiple test ranges in CONUS that they can drop MOABs on all day with much less hassle and 2) MOAB can't be used in contested airspace due to the platform used to deliver it.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Interesting that you mention Germany: don't they have a selective system?
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Yes, which is why selective education is a perennial on PB. At least it is not Brexit*.
*having lit the fuse, backs away...
I can well imagine that the Medical School you attended wasn't selective.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Absolutely. I'd happily pay a few % more in income tax to see all our children educated properly.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Yes, which is why selective education is a perennial on PB. At least it is not Brexit*.
*having lit the fuse, backs away...
Damn it Dr, after all the trouble you and I went to to have a discussion on something interesting for once rather than buggering about with the same silly arguments we've all heard three times a day for twelve months!
I shall leave in a huff and go and play the organ for Good Friday.
The grammar schools in Kent are all over subscribed, parents love them. But then what do they know.
It almost seems as though the SM’s in Kent are run down deliberately. Although one grandchild may well be going to one which has become a performing arts academy.
Call them what you like, the Acadamies near me aren't pulling up any trees.
Difficult to tell isn’t it, because one is unable to have a rerun at life! One thing I would say, girls from a nearby single-sex grammar school are sometimes on the same bus as me in the afternoon and their conversation is much more ‘liberated’ than that of the girls on my bus home from school in the 50’s. What some of them are happyn to talk about having done withn their boyfriends would, perhaps, even broaden Sean T’s mind.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
yes that's true
although a grammar school boy myself I tend to think the lack of socilal mixing is a weakness of the english education system, you get people who go through life without meeting anyone from a different background.
On the other hand the German system too is highly streamed socially the difference between a Gymnasium and a Realschule is as extreme as some of the variance in England. Where Germany does better is that it does enable people to come back in to the system more easily at the higher level whereas we just chuck them out the door and say thats your lot.
as an "immigrant" from the bogs however I did find the education system in England truly depressing, there's so little ambition.
Skirting round the reality, that aspirational adults want the best for their children. As a rule, poorly educated people don't see the benefit of education.
This is where I started. Why don't the Tories simply say they do not want their children to be educated alongside the plebs?
If they want grammar schools to be popular, and win them Tory votes then build them in leafy areas.
No idea, I'm not a Conservative.
Working class parents (I don't mean middle class luvvies) love grammar schools, Labour should pledge to create one in every one of the seats they win.
Working class people aren't afraid of competition and failure, they live with it all their lives, its the poncy middle classes that are squeamish.
I find it quite amazing that so many in Labour, having taken advantage of grammar schools for themselves (and often their own kids), seem determined to pull up the ladder behind them.
My anecdote is different. My older brother* failed his 11 plus, but fortunately was spared a Secondary Modern as they were abolished the following year (Solihull, early Seventies). He went to a Comprehensive, has a degree in economics from LSE and a higher degree in mathmatical economics. He now works in a very high powered job in London. Our parents were respectably middle class, my father a salesman and my mother a secretary. Private schooling wouldn't have been an option.
*He could barely read by age 10, and would probably be labelled as dyslexic nowadays.
I've always shaken my head at what is "allowed" at war
It never ceases to amaze me that anything as barbaric as war is considered as an solution to any political problem.
In a horrific scenario, sometimes it might be the least worst option. Which is not to say most war co es down to that.
True. But many "hawks" seem to start with "send a gunboat" as the initial solution.
That is also true. But being fair, many 'doves ' say 'extend an olive branch' well past the point that will work, and usually ignoring that people probably did try.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Yes, which is why selective education is a perennial on PB. At least it is not Brexit*.
*having lit the fuse, backs away...
I can well imagine that the Medical School you attended wasn't selective.
I don't think anyone suggests that academic selection for University is an issue. I do remember being told that some Continental Universities operate that way, but have a high dropout rate after the first year.
My own education was entirely unselective state education, albeit with 5 years of it in Atlanta GA state schools. That was a bit of a shock coming back to GCE's aged 14.
I'm interested to hear if those opposed to education by selection are equally opposed to education by the ability to pay.
Private schools are packed full of idiots with rich parents.
Good for them I say, its all about choice, but the hypocrisy stinks.
I sincerely hope my daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, as she would get a staggeringly good education for free.
I also believe that the Grammar / Secondary Modern split that exists in Buckinghamshire and Kent fails the poorest*.
* It also fails those born in August relative to those born in September. As a late August baby that worries me.
The power of astrology? I blame the parents.
What is depressing is that Michael Gove, who really did seem to care about education, chose to sabotage his own grand plans by starting a war with the people he needed, and who were initially on his side. (Leaving aside that he forgot about his day job and ended up with a place shortage as well.)
Back on topic (we're just not going to convince each other on grammars), turnout in France tends to be in the 80% range, far above the UK level, so GOTV differences shouldn't be that crucial., Insofar as they exist, I agree they will benefit Fillon most, as it's the conservative grass roots that have kept him in the game despite the flood of negative news stories.
It's hard to call, but the next President market should be seen like this, given that every poll sees Le Pen beaten in round 2 by anyone by a large margin::
Those odds look about right to me - I don't think there is now an obvious value bet among them. The obvious value is laying Le Pen at 4.6 - it ought to be more like 20.
However, compare with the first-round markets. Here, with Le Pen polling at 22-24%, the prices are Macron .3.35 Fillon 14 Melanchon 22
All of these look too long. Macron, as Fox has pointed out, should be close to evens - the polls show him trading the lead with Le Pen with no clear winner. If you think that Fillon is going to beat Macron, then there's a fair chance the same last-miute surge will take him past Le :Pen too, and the same goes for Melanchon.
Skirting round the reality, that aspirational adults want the best for their children. As a rule, poorly educated people don't see the benefit of education.
This is where I started. Why don't the Tories simply say they do not want their children to be educated alongside the plebs?
If they want grammar schools to be popular, and win them Tory votes then build them in leafy areas.
No idea, I'm not a Conservative.
Working class parents (I don't mean middle class luvvies) love grammar schools, Labour should pledge to create one in every one of the seats they win.
Working class people aren't afraid of competition and failure, they live with it all their lives, its the poncy middle classes that are squeamish.
I find it quite amazing that so many in Labour, having taken advantage of grammar schools for themselves (and often their own kids), seem determined to pull up the ladder behind them.
My anecdote is different. My older brother* failed his 11 plus, but fortunately was spared a Secondary Modern as they were abolished the following year (Solihull, early Seventies). He went to a Comprehensive, has a degree in economics from LSE and a higher degree in mathmatical economics. He now works in a very high powered job in London. Our parents were respectably middle class, my father a salesman and my mother a secretary. Private schooling wouldn't have been an option.
*He could barely read by age 10, and would probably be labelled as dyslexic nowadays.
Well done to your bother. Yes, any state-run system needs to take account of those who develop at different rates, putting labels for life on 11 year old kids isn't reasonable.
Doesn't stop certain politicians (thinking of you especially, Diane Abbot) being total hypocrites on the subject.
I'm interested to hear if those opposed to education by selection are equally opposed to education by the ability to pay.
Private schools are packed full of idiots with rich parents.
Good for them I say, its all about choice, but the hypocrisy stinks.
I sincerely hope my daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, as she would get a staggeringly good education for free.
I also believe that the Grammar / Secondary Modern split that exists in Buckinghamshire and Kent fails the poorest*.
* It also fails those born in August relative to those born in September. As a late August baby that worries me.
21st for me.
I dislike a lot about our education system, but have no idea how to fix it. For the sake of our future we should concentrate on raising the average achievement by as much as possible, those in the lower two thirds need better education for their future. We should not over stress pupils with constant exams.
I wonder if pupils need more space to think, problem solve and discuss.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Skirting round the reality, that aspirational adults want the best for their children. As a rule, poorly educated people don't see the benefit of education.
This is where I started. Why don't the Tories simply say they do not want their children to be educated alongside the plebs?
If they want grammar schools to be popular, and win them Tory votes then build them in leafy areas.
No idea, I'm not a Conservative.
Working class parents (I don't mean middle class luvvies) love grammar schools, Labour should pledge to create one in every one of the seats they win.
Working class people aren't afraid of competition and failure, they live with it all their lives, its the poncy middle classes that are squeamish.
I find it quite amazing that so many in Labour, having taken advantage of grammar schools for themselves (and often their own kids), seem determined to pull up the ladder behind them.
My anecdote is different. My older brother* failed his 11 plus, but fortunately was spared a Secondary Modern as they were abolished the following year (Solihull, early Seventies). He went to a Comprehensive, has a degree in economics from LSE and a higher degree in mathmatical economics. He now works in a very high powered job in London. Our parents were respectably middle class, my father a salesman and my mother a secretary. Private schooling wouldn't have been an option.
*He could barely read by age 10, and would probably be labelled as dyslexic nowadays.
Well done to your bother. Yes, any state-run system needs to take account of those who develop at different rates, putting labels for life on 11 year old kids isn't reasonable.
Doesn't stop certain politicians (thinking of you especially, Diane Abbot) being total hypocrites on the subject.
Diane Abbot is bang in line with the great British public would do actually..
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
I don't know of any, but let me have a back of an envelope attempt at the FSM bit. This is a fairly crude measure of deprivation with a national definition (I.e. you qualify on the same level of income whether you live in Bootle or Beaconsfield). Wages are not evenly distributed across the country, nor are living costs, so the smaller proportion of pupils who qualify for FSM in selective areas may well represent significantly more deprived families than those in non selective areas. Also, look at the graph: there is something odd going on with the data for Selectiva given the periodic ripple.
I would also like to see some indication of error bars...
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Builders, plumbers, electricians all provide a good living and quality of life for those who pursue them. I think we have a skills shortage there too.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Indeed. On-track bookmakers frequently have little formal education, but are mathematical wizards.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
I don't know of any, but let me have a back of an envelope attempt at the FSM bit. This is a fairly crude measure of deprivation with a national definition (I.e. you qualify on the same level of income whether you live in Bootle or Beaconsfield). Wages are not evenly distributed across the country, nor are living costs, so the smaller proportion of pupils who qualify for FSM in selective areas may well represent significantly more deprived families than those in non selective areas. Also, look at the graph: there is something odd going on with the data for Selectiva given the periodic ripple.
I would also like to see some indication of error bars...
Your FSM part is something that *might* have an influence, but given the high correlation with the deprivation index, it seems unlikely.
And surely the "periodic ripple" is simply the consequence of a smaller dataset introducing more randomness.
(I've always wanted my gravestone to read "Beware of Extrapolation from Small Datasets".)
I'm interested to hear if those opposed to education by selection are equally opposed to education by the ability to pay.
Private schools are packed full of idiots with rich parents.
Good for them I say, its all about choice, but the hypocrisy stinks.
I sincerely hope my daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, as she would get a staggeringly good education for free.
I also believe that the Grammar / Secondary Modern split that exists in Buckinghamshire and Kent fails the poorest*.
* It also fails those born in August relative to those born in September. As a late August baby that worries me.
21st for me.
I dislike a lot about our education system, but have no idea how to fix it. For the sake of our future we should concentrate on raising the average achievement by as much as possible, those in the lower two thirds need better education for their future. We should not over stress pupils with constant exams.
I wonder if pupils need more space to think, problem solve and discuss.
It seems to me that education policy - like prison policy - can be genuinely evidence based. What are the outcomes we wish to achieve? Let's run experiments in a dozen counties and see what works.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Interesting that you mention Germany: don't they have a selective system?
Yes but not in a way comparable to the Grammar school system.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
The only doctors who actually do anything useful, surgeons, are basically plumbers, carpententers and metalworkers. It's well known that physicians are useless if not deleterious.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Interesting that you mention Germany: don't they have a selective system?
Yes but not in a way comparable to the Grammar school system.
I'm interested to hear if those opposed to education by selection are equally opposed to education by the ability to pay.
Private schools are packed full of idiots with rich parents.
Good for them I say, its all about choice, but the hypocrisy stinks.
I sincerely hope my daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, as she would get a staggeringly good education for free.
I also believe that the Grammar / Secondary Modern split that exists in Buckinghamshire and Kent fails the poorest*.
* It also fails those born in August relative to those born in September. As a late August baby that worries me.
The power of astrology? I blame the parents.
What is depressing is that Michael Gove, who really did seem to care about education, chose to sabotage his own grand plans by starting a war with the people he needed, and who were initially on his side. (Leaving aside that he forgot about his day job and ended up with a place shortage as well.)
No, it’s not astrology. Children born in the autumn are almost 6 when they start year 1 in September. Children born in (especially) late summer are only just 5. One of my great-nephews, born in August, has really struggled. Not perhaps the quickest lad academically anyway he was in a class with children almost a year older and has really had problems.
Back on topic (we're just not going to convince each other on grammars), turnout in France tends to be in the 80% range, far above the UK level, so GOTV differences shouldn't be that crucial., Insofar as they exist, I agree they will benefit Fillon most, as it's the conservative grass roots that have kept him in the game despite the flood of negative news stories.
It's hard to call, but the next President market should be seen like this, given that every poll sees Le Pen beaten in round 2 by anyone by a large margin::
Those odds look about right to me - I don't think there is now an obvious value bet among them. The obvious value is laying Le Pen at 4.6 - it ought to be more like 20.
However, compare with the first-round markets. Here, with Le Pen polling at 22-24%, the prices are Macron .3.35 Fillon 14 Melanchon 22
All of these look too long. Macron, as Fox has pointed out, should be close to evens - the polls show him trading the lead with Le Pen with no clear winner. If you think that Fillon is going to beat Macron, then there's a fair chance the same last-miute surge will take him past Le :Pen too, and the same goes for Melanchon.
DYOR, etc.
Yes, the Macron topping the first round odds do seem generous. I would reckon evens with LePen. On the one hand she has the FN GOTV support, but on the other Macron is a lot more palatable to undecideds and FN vote is often overstated.
If the top 4 all poll between 18 and 25%, and possibly in a very tight range then unexpected combinations may occur.
If LePen fails to make the last 2 then she surely would have to be sub 20%. The 18.5 for LePen sub 20% may then be a tastier way of betting on her coming third.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Indeed. On-track bookmakers frequently have little formal education, but are mathematical wizards.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
I don't know of any, but let me have a back of an envelope attempt at the FSM bit. This is a fairly crude measure of deprivation with a national definition (I.e. you qualify on the same level of income whether you live in Bootle or Beaconsfield). Wages are not evenly distributed across the country, nor are living costs, so the smaller proportion of pupils who qualify for FSM in selective areas may well represent significantly more deprived families than those in non selective areas. Also, look at the graph: there is something odd going on with the data for Selectiva given the periodic ripple.
I would also like to see some indication of error bars...
Your FSM part is something that *might* have an influence, but given the high correlation with the deprivation index, it seems unlikely.
And surely the "periodic ripple" is simply the consequence of a smaller dataset introducing more randomness.
(I've always wanted my gravestone to read "Beware of Extrapolation from Small Datasets".)
The Small Dataset problem is one of the things that bothers me about this! What are the error bars?
I don't trust any 'data' from the current very limited number of grammars.
Of course grammars will currently benefit the middle classes - they're located in largely middle class counties/areas of counties....
Put some Grammar schools in Bootle and then we'll see some changes in this country.
Exactly, that is the ridiculous stance of Labour/Socialists, its the kids in their constituencies that most need a leg up yet they're consigned to at best, a mediocre education. Rather everybody fail than a few are seen to succeed. Grammars in working class towns are whats needed.
Incidentally house prices in Dover are some of the cheapest in the SE but it has a boys and girls grammar.
There was a very interesting piece in the FT (I think) a couple of weeks ago on people's attitudes.
In general, the evidence suggests that people don't mind inequality so long as the distribution is perceived to be fair.
I'd argue the left tend to equate "fairness" with "equality of outcome", but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I suspect, though, that having a single test at 11 which determines grammar vs secondary modern is seen as "unfair" by most - but it should be very possible to structural around that weakness.
Working class parents (I don't mean middle class luvvies) love grammar schools, Labour should pledge to create one in every one of the seats they win.
Working class people aren't afraid of competition and failure, they live with it all their lives, its the poncy middle classes that are squeamish.
I find it quite amazing that so many in Labour, having taken advantage of grammar schools for themselves (and often their own kids), seem determined to pull up the ladder behind them.
My anecdote is different. My older brother* failed his 11 plus, but fortunately was spared a Secondary Modern as they were abolished the following year (Solihull, early Seventies). He went to a Comprehensive, has a degree in economics from LSE and a higher degree in mathmatical economics. He now works in a very high powered job in London. Our parents were respectably middle class, my father a salesman and my mother a secretary. Private schooling wouldn't have been an option.
*He could barely read by age 10, and would probably be labelled as dyslexic nowadays.
Well done to your bother. Yes, any state-run system needs to take account of those who develop at different rates, putting labels for life on 11 year old kids isn't reasonable.
Doesn't stop certain politicians (thinking of you especially, Diane Abbot) being total hypocrites on the subject.
Diane Abbot is bang in line with the great British public would do actually..
Which is why Mrs May's proposals have wide support within the country as a whole.
The *current* provision of grammar schools are populated by the products of extensive tutoring by middle-class parents happy to avoid the fees of private school. The current very good "comprehensive" schools are also nothing of the sort either, being in areas where house prices make them completely unaffordable for 90% of the population.
What Mrs May wants to see is equality of opportunity, where excellent state education is open to a much broader range of the population.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
I'm sorry my back story offends you. But it is the only one I have.
If grammar schools are so good, how come nobody who attended one can differentiate between personal experience and statistical evidence?
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Yes, which is why selective education is a perennial on PB. At least it is not Brexit*.
*having lit the fuse, backs away...
I can well imagine that the Medical School you attended wasn't selective.
I don't think anyone suggests that academic selection for University is an issue. I do remember being told that some Continental Universities operate that way, but have a high dropout rate after the first year.
My own education was entirely unselective state education, albeit with 5 years of it in Atlanta GA state schools. That was a bit of a shock coming back to GCE's aged 14.
My dad was a diplomat so I was educated in a Belgian junior school, then a few years in a private school in DC then boarding school in the UK. To say the US to UK transition was 'a bit of a shock' was an understatement. I think the only lasting thing of value I learned in the US school was how to be a good shot with a pistol. The Belgian school was really good as far as I can remember.
Back on topic (we're just not going to convince each other on grammars), turnout in France tends to be in the 80% range, far above the UK level, so GOTV differences shouldn't be that crucial., Insofar as they exist, I agree they will benefit Fillon most, as it's the conservative grass roots that have kept him in the game despite the flood of negative news stories.
It's hard to call, but the next President market should be seen like this, given that every poll sees Le Pen beaten in round 2 by anyone by a large margin::
Those odds look about right to me - I don't think there is now an obvious value bet among them. The obvious value is laying Le Pen at 4.6 - it ought to be more like 20.
However, compare with the first-round markets. Here, with Le Pen polling at 22-24%, the prices are Macron .3.35 Fillon 14 Melanchon 22
All of these look too long. Macron, as Fox has pointed out, should be close to evens - the polls show him trading the lead with Le Pen with no clear winner. If you think that Fillon is going to beat Macron, then there's a fair chance the same last-miute surge will take him past Le :Pen too, and the same goes for Melanchon.
DYOR, etc.
Yes, the Macron topping the first round odds do seem generous. I would reckon evens with LePen. On the one hand she has the FN GOTV support, but on the other Macron is a lot more palatable to undecideds and FN vote is often overstated.
If the top 4 all poll between 18 and 25%, and possibly in a very tight range then unexpected combinations may occur.
If LePen fails to make the last 2 then she surely would have to be sub 20%. The 18.5 for LePen sub 20% may then be a tastier way of betting on her coming third.
Hmm, I wouldn't be surprised to see three candidates on 20-24%. That being said, that 18.5 looks good odds given how the PVV faded in the last two weeks of the Dutch election.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Indeed. On-track bookmakers frequently have little formal education, but are mathematical wizards.
Watch the scorers in pub darts teams!
I read the same comment in article about the US loansharks. Few of them are well-educated, but they have no difficulty with calculating compound interest in a flash.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
I'm sorry my back story offends you. But it is the only one I have.
I'm particularly impressed by the way they still invite you back to the club after you cancelled your membership because it's 'in their interests'.
I'm interested to hear if those opposed to education by selection are equally opposed to education by the ability to pay.
Private schools are packed full of idiots with rich parents.
Good for them I say, its all about choice, but the hypocrisy stinks.
I sincerely hope my daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, as she would get a staggeringly good education for free.
I also believe that the Grammar / Secondary Modern split that exists in Buckinghamshire and Kent fails the poorest*.
* It also fails those born in August relative to those born in September. As a late August baby that worries me.
21st for me.
I dislike a lot about our education system, but have no idea how to fix it. For the sake of our future we should concentrate on raising the average achievement by as much as possible, those in the lower two thirds need better education for their future. We should not over stress pupils with constant exams.
I wonder if pupils need more space to think, problem solve and discuss.
It seems to me that education policy - like prison policy - can be genuinely evidence based. What are the outcomes we wish to achieve? Let's run experiments in a dozen counties and see what works.
There is much more argument of the outcomes we want from education than the outcome we want from prison (fewer crimes committed).
I don't trust any 'data' from the current very limited number of grammars.
Of course grammars will currently benefit the middle classes - they're located in largely middle class counties/areas of counties....
Put some Grammar schools in Bootle and then we'll see some changes in this country.
Exactly, that is the ridiculous stance of Labour/Socialists, its the kids in their constituencies that most need a leg up yet they're consigned to at best, a mediocre education. Rather everybody fail than a few are seen to succeed. Grammars in working class towns are whats needed.
Incidentally house prices in Dover are some of the cheapest in the SE but it has a boys and girls grammar.
There was a very interesting piece in the FT (I think) a couple of weeks ago on people's attitudes.
In general, the evidence suggests that people don't mind inequality so long as the distribution is perceived to be fair.
I'd argue the left tend to equate "fairness" with "equality of outcome", but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I suspect, though, that having a single test at 11 which determines grammar vs secondary modern is seen as "unfair" by most - but it should be very possible to structural around that weakness.
The fact is that most human beings don't want equality. It runs completely contrary to the way we operate.
I don't trust any 'data' from the current very limited number of grammars.
Of course grammars will currently benefit the middle classes - they're located in largely middle class counties/areas of counties....
Put some Grammar schools in Bootle and then we'll see some changes in this country.
Exactly, that is the ridiculous stance of Labour/Socialists, its the kids in their constituencies that most need a leg up yet they're consigned to at best, a mediocre education. Rather everybody fail than a few are seen to succeed. Grammars in working class towns are whats needed.
Incidentally house prices in Dover are some of the cheapest in the SE but it has a boys and girls grammar.
There was a very interesting piece in the FT (I think) a couple of weeks ago on people's attitudes.
In general, the evidence suggests that people don't mind inequality so long as the distribution is perceived to be fair.
I'd argue the left tend to equate "fairness" with "equality of outcome", but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I suspect, though, that having a single test at 11 which determines grammar vs secondary modern is seen as "unfair" by most - but it should be very possible to structural around that weakness.
You need to be able to have people moving easily between the two systems, and you probably need to use more than a single datapoint (i.e. one exam at 10 years old).
I also think this discussion misses the point somewhat: we're all thinking about the top 20% of achievers (which is everyone on PB, with one or two exceptions), and not about the employability of the next 80%.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
Is the pool of FSM families objectively the same in "leafy areas"?
i.e. If, as some people argue, that in wealthy areas it is relatively easier to perform economically (because of job opportunities, whatever) does that mean that those families who are still on FSM are "harder cases" than people on FSM in more generally deprived areas?
(I don't know if the data bears this out, but it is certainly something that could be used to challenge the FT piece - although they should have controlled for factors like this)
I don't trust any 'data' from the current very limited number of grammars.
Of course grammars will currently benefit the middle classes - they're located in largely middle class counties/areas of counties....
Put some Grammar schools in Bootle and then we'll see some changes in this country.
Exactly, that is the ridiculous stance of Labour/Socialists, its the kids in their constituencies that most need a leg up yet they're consigned to at best, a mediocre education. Rather everybody fail than a few are seen to succeed. Grammars in working class towns are whats needed.
Incidentally house prices in Dover are some of the cheapest in the SE but it has a boys and girls grammar.
There was a very interesting piece in the FT (I think) a couple of weeks ago on people's attitudes.
In general, the evidence suggests that people don't mind inequality so long as the distribution is perceived to be fair.
I'd argue the left tend to equate "fairness" with "equality of outcome", but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I suspect, though, that having a single test at 11 which determines grammar vs secondary modern is seen as "unfair" by most - but it should be very possible to structural around that weakness.
The fact is that most human beings don't want equality. It runs completely contrary to the way we operate.
I always liked the John Major quote: I want everyone to have as equal a chance as possible of becoming as unequal as possible.
I've always shaken my head at what is "allowed" at war
It never ceases to amaze me that anything as barbaric as war is considered as an solution to any political problem.
Because it frequently solves political problems.
I'm only surprised that any restraint is practised at all.
I think there is a gradiation in war, from all out existential war, such as the East front in WW2, or possibly with IS, and the more limited rules of engagement in more low level conflicts such as the NI troubles. One hard thing to take is that these are assymetric rules for assymetric wars, not Queensbury rules.
The case of the recent Marine convicted of manslaughter illustrates this well, and for PB movie buffs Breaker Morant has the role of atrocity vs discipline in pacification of guerillas as a central theme.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
Is the pool of FSM families objectively the same in "leafy areas"?
i.e. If, as some people argue, that in wealthy areas it is relatively easier to perform economically (because of job opportunities, whatever) does that mean that those families who are still on FSM are "harder cases" than people on FSM in more generally deprived areas?
(I don't know if the data bears this out, but it is certainly something that could be used to challenge the FT piece - although they should have controlled for factors like this)
I think it is simply a question of "what can we find that is a large dataset and which probably correlates reasomably well with 'poor'"?
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Indeed. On-track bookmakers frequently have little formal education, but are mathematical wizards.
Watch the scorers in pub darts teams!
I read the same comment in article about the US loansharks. Few of them are well-educated, but they have no difficulty with calculating compound interest in a flash.
Demonstrates the difference in our leisure activities!
For example 88% of the workers in the UK agricultural sector are British.
Weren't we told that if we didn't have unrestricted immigration we would all starve ?
Likewise 86% of the workers in retail / restaurants / hotels are also British.
Makes you wonder what PretAManger's recruitment methods and employment practices are.
There was something along a similar vein about care workers this week.
The largest concentration of migrants is moving to London. London generally has a younger population than the rest of the country. London is the least British demographic in the country yet also has the largest number of unfilled care worker vacancies.
One thing I noticed when I was up in Manchester for a wedding last summer was how every single service person - waitresses, hotels, taxi drivers - were natives of the region (one Uber driver was I think, a second generation immigrant).
I don't trust any 'data' from the current very limited number of grammars.
Of course grammars will currently benefit the middle classes - they're located in largely middle class counties/areas of counties....
Put some Grammar schools in Bootle and then we'll see some changes in this country.
Exactly, that is the ridiculous stance of Labour/Socialists, its the kids in their constituencies that most need a leg up yet they're consigned to at best, a mediocre education. Rather everybody fail than a few are seen to succeed. Grammars in working class towns are whats needed.
Incidentally house prices in Dover are some of the cheapest in the SE but it has a boys and girls grammar.
There was a very interesting piece in the FT (I think) a couple of weeks ago on people's attitudes.
In general, the evidence suggests that people don't mind inequality so long as the distribution is perceived to be fair.
I'd argue the left tend to equate "fairness" with "equality of outcome", but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I suspect, though, that having a single test at 11 which determines grammar vs secondary modern is seen as "unfair" by most - but it should be very possible to structural around that weakness.
You need to be able to have people moving easily between the two systems, and you probably need to use more than a single datapoint (i.e. one exam at 10 years old).
I also think this discussion misses the point somewhat: we're all thinking about the top 20% of achievers (which is everyone on PB, with one or two exceptions), and not about the employability of the next 80%.
Nope. I'm more focused on the 30-80 tier than the top 20.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
Is the pool of FSM families objectively the same in "leafy areas"?
i.e. If, as some people argue, that in wealthy areas it is relatively easier to perform economically (because of job opportunities, whatever) does that mean that those families who are still on FSM are "harder cases" than people on FSM in more generally deprived areas?
(I don't know if the data bears this out, but it is certainly something that could be used to challenge the FT piece - although they should have controlled for factors like this)
I think it is simply a question of "what can we find that is a large dataset and which probably correlates reasomably well with 'poor'"?
Not good enough for making a judgement on policy outcomes.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Yes, which is why selective education is a perennial on PB. At least it is not Brexit*.
*having lit the fuse, backs away...
I can well imagine that the Medical School you attended wasn't selective.
I don't think anyone suggests that academic selection for University is an issue. I do remember being told that some Continental Universities operate that way, but have a high dropout rate after the first year.
My own education was entirely unselective state education, albeit with 5 years of it in Atlanta GA state schools. That was a bit of a shock coming back to GCE's aged 14.
My dad was a diplomat so I was educated in a Belgian junior school, then a few years in a private school in DC then boarding school in the UK. To say the US to UK transition was 'a bit of a shock' was an understatement. I think the only lasting thing of value I learned in the US school was how to be a good shot with a pistol. The Belgian school was really good as far as I can remember.
In Atlanta, We were taught geography by playing the boardgame Risk.
On the other hand both Maths and English grammar were taught very well. At that time University entrance SATS exams in the US were based exclusively on these two subjects.
American state schools really are much like the movies.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Glad to see us in agreement
Yes, the disruptive kids are often not stupid, they just don't see the point of school and have parents that don't see the point of school either. So teach them the sort of things they'll find useful in life and guide them towards a trade rather than into a disruptive lifestyle as adults.
But yes, teach them with motivation and context. Let them learn maths in practice before doing the theory, so have them build a woooden box 24cm x 10cm and measure the lengths to learn that 5 squared plus 12 squared equals 13 squared; have them quickly add up 20,18, 18, 18 and 5, subtracting the result from 301 etc.
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
Is the pool of FSM families objectively the same in "leafy areas"?
i.e. If, as some people argue, that in wealthy areas it is relatively easier to perform economically (because of job opportunities, whatever) does that mean that those families who are still on FSM are "harder cases" than people on FSM in more generally deprived areas?
(I don't know if the data bears this out, but it is certainly something that could be used to challenge the FT piece - although they should have controlled for factors like this)
I think it is simply a question of "what can we find that is a large dataset and which probably correlates reasomably well with 'poor'"?
'Correlates reasonably well' is entirely consistent with producing a bit of a diffence between two lines on a graph which I'm then going to point to as proof of my argument.
Anyway, I'm off to finish off my last lot of GCSE coursework marking. Bye
I've always shaken my head at what is "allowed" at war
It never ceases to amaze me that anything as barbaric as war is considered as an solution to any political problem.
Because it frequently solves political problems.
Really? Why are so many ongoing wars and guerrilla actions sorted out around the conference table when the cemeteries are full up with the recently deceased combatants?
What war stopped without politicians signing some sort of peace accord?
Yes, the Macron topping the first round odds do seem generous. I would reckon evens with LePen. On the one hand she has the FN GOTV support, but on the other Macron is a lot more palatable to undecideds and FN vote is often overstated.
If the top 4 all poll between 18 and 25%, and possibly in a very tight range then unexpected combinations may occur.
If LePen fails to make the last 2 then she surely would have to be sub 20%. The 18.5 for LePen sub 20% may then be a tastier way of betting on her coming third.
Most would agree that Le Pen has long been overestimated in all the markets. It seems to be based on the assumptiton that she is a near certainty to make it through to the final round round and that the certainty to vote amongst her support is very high.
However, over the past month her polling has fallen from 26-27% to the 22-24% range. She has therefore shed about 10-15% of her support, which, as Mr Meeks pointed out downthread, belies the 80%+ certainty to vote figures she has been credited with.
HYUFD will point out that the 22 and 22.5% figures she scored in the Harris and Elabe polls should be ignored because they both underestimate her support in comparison to other polls. I could perhaps accept this if it were just one polling company, but two increases the chance that they could be right and the other polls wrong. Anyway, the underlying trend form all polls is that she is on a downward spiral and 22% from Harris yesterday is the lowest she has polled for over two years.
Bottom line is that she is no longer the certainty she was, to finish in the top two and at some point, it is likely that the markets will wake up to that reality and adjust accordinglly
Whilst I support grammar schools, if we're going to have them we need to do it properly and that means getting rid of free schools. My experience of the comprehensive education system was that while the teaching was excellent, my form tutor and head of year were far more concerned about what I wasn't good at than what I was good at.
What I would like to see is more secondary schools with sixth forms. My school didn't have one and so all they cared about was how many kids get five A to Cs including maths and English. They gave me very little guidance (and to be fair, neither did my sixth form college) over what subjects I should pick. Instead they were just like "well, your good at science so do chemistry and physics."
And whilst it probably isn't practical, I think we should abolish catchment areas. I'm sorry, but if we can't have selection by ability, we certainly shouldn't tolerate selection by house price.
I've always shaken my head at what is "allowed" at war
It never ceases to amaze me that anything as barbaric as war is considered as an solution to any political problem.
Because it frequently solves political problems.
Really? Why are so many ongoing wars and guerrilla actions sorted out around the conference table when the cemeteries are full up with the recently deceased combatants?
What war stopped without politicians signing some sort of peace accord?
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
I'm sorry my back story offends you. But it is the only one I have.
If grammar schools are so good, how come nobody who attended one can differentiate between personal experience and statistical evidence?
No one can differentiate these days. Calculus seems to be off the curriculum ....
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
Is the pool of FSM families objectively the same in "leafy areas"?
i.e. If, as some people argue, that in wealthy areas it is relatively easier to perform economically (because of job opportunities, whatever) does that mean that those families who are still on FSM are "harder cases" than people on FSM in more generally deprived areas?
(I don't know if the data bears this out, but it is certainly something that could be used to challenge the FT piece - although they should have controlled for factors like this)
I think it is simply a question of "what can we find that is a large dataset and which probably correlates reasomably well with 'poor'"?
There is probably a genetic issue as well. My parents had two children; both of us went to grammar school, both ended up with degrees. Both our spouses went to grammar school, similar result. We have six children between us, of whom three went through the Scottish ssyem, three the English, all comprehensives. They have turned out as follows, in order. Degree (E), low-level professional qualification (E), no FE (S), PhD (S), degree (S), degree (E).
Both the English educated degree holders went to University in their 20’s as mature students after working, one in industry and one in the City. The PhD holder went straight to Uni from school, then worked for about 5 years before returning to academia.
Thanks for good conversation this morning I'm now off for a few hours for one of that rituals of expatriate life known as the visa run - the requirement to leave the country, if only for a few minutes, in order to renew one's legal status. Enjoy!
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
Is the pool of FSM families objectively the same in "leafy areas"?
i.e. If, as some people argue, that in wealthy areas it is relatively easier to perform economically (because of job opportunities, whatever) does that mean that those families who are still on FSM are "harder cases" than people on FSM in more generally deprived areas?
(I don't know if the data bears this out, but it is certainly something that could be used to challenge the FT piece - although they should have controlled for factors like this)
I think it is simply a question of "what can we find that is a large dataset and which probably correlates reasomably well with 'poor'"?
Not good enough for making a judgement on policy outcomes.
The figures in this table list Free School Meals and Pupil Premium separately, but the results are very similar.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately.
If PB had a 'like' button I would have been sitting here mashing it for the last half-hour. I couldn't agree more. By solving the disruptive elements, you improve not only their educational prospects immeasurably, but also the other 95% of the class.
And the exasperating thing is that it used to happen. Unpack the phrase "special educational needs" for a moment. It isn't a synonym for "disabled" or "handicapped" or anything. It means just that: special, or distinct, educational needs.
Some local authorities used to do pretty much what you describe - Leicester is one example I know. There were two levels of SEN schools. S (Severe) schools were what you might traditionally think of as a "special school". But there were also M (Moderate) schools, for kids who had fallen significantly behind and were not going to progress within a mainstream school. By providing a school which could address their particular needs, while removing that from the 80% (or, more likely, 95%) task of the mainstream schools, everyone's education improved.
So what changed? Partly cost-cutting, but mostly David Blunkett. Blunkett believed that integration into mainstream schools was desirable at all costs, reportedly as a result of his own experience - even though a smart blind kid is an entirely different challenge to a physically able kid with learning difficulties. Most M schools were closed, though a few survive.
It isn't a simple panacea. I remember in Leicester there was a perpetual, and understandable, issue with parents who wanted their kids to be lawyers or doctors and simply couldn't accept that they might be better educated outside a mainstream setting. But I would love to see a Government be brave and institute a review, and possibly a local pilot, of this type of schooling. If there's any PPCs reading this, here's a policy for you, please steal it.
Not bet on it but the Turkish referendum odds have shifted a bit. I think it was something like 1.28 (maybe tiny bit longer) Yes, 3.25 No, but it's now 1.44/2.75 on Ladbrokes.
Surely it's very very likely to pass given the state of the media?
I've always shaken my head at what is "allowed" at war
It never ceases to amaze me that anything as barbaric as war is considered as an solution to any political problem.
Because it frequently solves political problems.
Really? Why are so many ongoing wars and guerrilla actions sorted out around the conference table when the cemeteries are full up with the recently deceased combatants?
What war stopped without politicians signing some sort of peace accord?
WWII. Germany signed an unconditional surrender.
Fair point, although I will plead in mitigation that Germany was effectively about 100 yards wide at the time, sandwiched between the Allies and the Russians so there probably was an unusually large incentive to sign anything...
It will be ignored as usual in favour of a cascade of anecdotes of how individual pbers escaped the salt mines, went to a grammar school and are now stalwarts of the local golf club.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
Is it a good piece of analysis? There are so many different ways to analyse the data that you can normally pick the ones that agree with what you have decided is the correct answer. Policy based evidence selection you might say.
There were two charts that really stood out to me: one, free school meal pupils do much worst in Selectavia than in the rest of the country; two, the deprivation index against GCSE points had a much steeper curve in Selectavia.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
Is the pool of FSM families objectively the same in "leafy areas"?
i.e. If, as some people argue, that in wealthy areas it is relatively easier to perform economically (because of job opportunities, whatever) does that mean that those families who are still on FSM are "harder cases" than people on FSM in more generally deprived areas?
(I don't know if the data bears this out, but it is certainly something that could be used to challenge the FT piece - although they should have controlled for factors like this)
I think it is simply a question of "what can we find that is a large dataset and which probably correlates reasomably well with 'poor'"?
Not good enough for making a judgement on policy outcomes.
Sure, but if enough similar things all show similar results (such as the deprivation index vs GCSE scores) then the onus starts to be on proving the opposite.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Glad to see us in agreement
Yes, the disruptive kids are often not stupid, they just don't see the point of school and have parents that don't see the point of school either. So teach them the sort of things they'll find useful in life and guide them towards a trade rather than into a disruptive lifestyle as adults.
But yes, teach them with motivation and context. Let them learn maths in practice before doing the theory, so have them build a woooden box 24cm x 10cm and measure the lengths to learn that 5 squared plus 12 squared equals 13 squared; have them quickly add up 20,18, 18, 18 and 5, subtracting the result from 301 etc.
Disruptive kids are often very smart kids who are bored.
I've always shaken my head at what is "allowed" at war
It never ceases to amaze me that anything as barbaric as war is considered as an solution to any political problem.
Because it frequently solves political problems.
Really? Why are so many ongoing wars and guerrilla actions sorted out around the conference table when the cemeteries are full up with the recently deceased combatants?
What war stopped without politicians signing some sort of peace accord?
WWII, the conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam, the Sri Lankan civil war, the Six Day War, the Falklands War, the Spanish civil war, the Chinese civil war, the Ethiopian civil war, the first Gulf War all resulted in total victory for one side, as have plenty of other conflicts.
It's a staggeringly good piece of analysis, and it fundamentally changed my mind. Grammar schools boost through educational outcomes of the wealthy, and lower them for everyone else.
I think we should spend more time looking at education systems that work for the next 80% (Germany, Switzerland and Sweden would be a good place to start), and less timing harking back to the past.
in England education is simply class war by other means
Sadly that's true.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Is the real problem not the top 20%, but rather the bottom 20%?
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
I would agree, though possibly woodwork and metalwork may not suit the modern workplace so well. Plenty of contact sport to work off that energy and aggression should be part of the curriculum too.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Indeed. On-track bookmakers frequently have little formal education, but are mathematical wizards.
Watch the scorers in pub darts teams!
That's mostly just practice (learning what the trebles are and recognising common combinations) and learning a couple of tricks for the subtraction.
Yes, the Macron topping the first round odds do seem generous. I would reckon evens with LePen. On the one hand she has the FN GOTV support, but on the other Macron is a lot more palatable to undecideds and FN vote is often overstated.
If the top 4 all poll between 18 and 25%, and possibly in a very tight range then unexpected combinations may occur.
If LePen fails to make the last 2 then she surely would have to be sub 20%. The 18.5 for LePen sub 20% may then be a tastier way of betting on her coming third.
Most would agree that Le Pen has long been overestimated in all the markets. It seems to be based on the assumptiton that she is a near certainty to make it through to the final round round and that the certainty to vote amongst her support is very high.
However, over the past month her polling has fallen from 26-27% to the 22-24% range. She has therefore shed about 10-15% of her support, which, as Mr Meeks pointed out downthread, belies the 80%+ certainty to vote figures she has been credited with.
HYUFD will point out that the 22 and 22.5% figures she scored in the Harris and Elabe polls should be ignored because they both underestimate her support in comparison to other polls. I could perhaps accept this if it were just one polling company, but two increases the chance that they could be right and the other polls wrong. Anyway, the underlying trend form all polls is that she is on a downward spiral and 22% from Harris yesterday is the lowest she has polled for over two years.
Bottom line is that she is no longer the certainty she was, to finish in the top two and at some point, it is likely that the markets will wake up to that reality and adjust accordinglly
I suspect the risk in my tip is that LePen come 3rd with 21%. Still seems value at 18.5 for under 20%.
If the PB mods could get a header out of @ChrisinParis it would be ideal. His early tips on Fillon in the primary, Hamon in the primary, Macron as independent and Melenchon have put me in the green across the board. He knows his (French) onions!
How on earth does Labour lose to a Tory in Middlesborough, if Corbyn is such a positive force? Am now looking forward to bloodletting after the local elections in May.
Comments
No grammars here.
*having lit the fuse, backs away...
Others may have a different opinion.
What really annoys me is that we spend so much time concentrating on the educational outcomes of the top 20% of pupils, when all the evidence is that the top 20% of pupils in the UK do very well on international comparisons.
It's the next 80% who do very poorly. We should be thinking about what we need to do to improve their educational outcomes, not implementing a policy that - all the evidence indicates - worsens them.
It's sad that the old Tripartite Education System was never properly implemented. If we'd had proper technical schools alongside the Grammars and the Secondary Moderns, things might have turned out very differently.
Nor did Jeremy Corbyn of course, but for rather different reasons.
https://twitter.com/tomcopley/status/852590766950166528
Private schools are packed full of idiots with rich parents.
Good for them I say, its all about choice, but the hypocrisy stinks.
I would love to see a take down of the FT piece. It's been shared a bunch of times, so if you know of someone who's done a good rebuttal, please post it.
I shall leave in a huff and go and play the organ for Good Friday.
Happy Easter to you all.
although a grammar school boy myself I tend to think the lack of socilal mixing is a weakness of the english education system, you get people who go through life without meeting anyone from a different background.
On the other hand the German system too is highly streamed socially the difference between a Gymnasium and a Realschule is as extreme as some of the variance in England. Where Germany does better is that it does enable people to come back in to the system more easily at the higher level whereas we just chuck them out the door and say thats your lot.
as an "immigrant" from the bogs however I did find the education system in England truly depressing, there's so little ambition.
*He could barely read by age 10, and would probably be labelled as dyslexic nowadays.
I also believe that the Grammar / Secondary Modern split that exists in Buckinghamshire and Kent fails the poorest*.
* It also fails those born in August relative to those born in September. As a late August baby that worries me.
I'd be in favour of 'reverse grammar schools', where the most disruptive and unwilling to learn pupils are taken out of the regular school and educated separately. Their education could be tailored towards their needs, with geography and history replaced with woodwork and metalwork, simple science and maths taught in context (vehicle maintainance, maybe even playing darts) and pupils encouraged to use the abilities the have to steer themselves towards the trades. Much better than letting them disrupt the education of everyone else.
My own education was entirely unselective state education, albeit with 5 years of it in Atlanta GA state schools. That was a bit of a shock coming back to GCE's aged 14.
What is depressing is that Michael Gove, who really did seem to care about education, chose to sabotage his own grand plans by starting a war with the people he needed, and who were initially on his side. (Leaving aside that he forgot about his day job and ended up with a place shortage as well.)
Everyone is opposed to grammars in principle.
Everyone would try and send their kids to them if they were in their area.
So British.
It's hard to call, but the next President market should be seen like this, given that every poll sees Le Pen beaten in round 2 by anyone by a large margin::
Macron: price 1.9, polling 23%
Fillon: price 6, polling 20%
Melanchon: price 11, polling 19%
Those odds look about right to me - I don't think there is now an obvious value bet among them. The obvious value is laying Le Pen at 4.6 - it ought to be more like 20.
However, compare with the first-round markets. Here, with Le Pen polling at 22-24%, the prices are
Macron .3.35
Fillon 14
Melanchon 22
All of these look too long. Macron, as Fox has pointed out, should be close to evens - the polls show him trading the lead with Le Pen with no clear winner. If you think that Fillon is going to beat Macron, then there's a fair chance the same last-miute surge will take him past Le :Pen too, and the same goes for Melanchon.
DYOR, etc.
Doesn't stop certain politicians (thinking of you especially, Diane Abbot) being total hypocrites on the subject.
I dislike a lot about our education system, but have no idea how to fix it. For the sake of our future we should concentrate on raising the average achievement by as much as possible, those in the lower two thirds need better education for their future. We should not over stress pupils with constant exams.
I wonder if pupils need more space to think, problem solve and discuss.
Motivation is everything, there is a world of difference between being uneducated and being thick. Plenty of people who failed GCSE maths can understand football statistics or price up an eighth of an ounce.
Also, look at the graph: there is something odd going on with the data for Selectiva given the periodic ripple.
I would also like to see some indication of error bars...
I disagree with a lot of aspects of Health policy, but have to work within them, and implement them.
And surely the "periodic ripple" is simply the consequence of a smaller dataset introducing more randomness.
(I've always wanted my gravestone to read "Beware of Extrapolation from Small Datasets".)
My statement is accurate. It's more of an observation than any criticism.
I'm only surprised that any restraint is practised at all.
If the top 4 all poll between 18 and 25%, and possibly in a very tight range then unexpected combinations may occur.
If LePen fails to make the last 2 then she surely would have to be sub 20%. The 18.5 for LePen sub 20% may then be a tastier way of betting on her coming third.
In general, the evidence suggests that people don't mind inequality so long as the distribution is perceived to be fair.
I'd argue the left tend to equate "fairness" with "equality of outcome", but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I suspect, though, that having a single test at 11 which determines grammar vs secondary modern is seen as "unfair" by most - but it should be very possible to structural around that weakness.
I also think this discussion misses the point somewhat: we're all thinking about the top 20% of achievers (which is everyone on PB, with one or two exceptions), and not about the employability of the next 80%.
i.e. If, as some people argue, that in wealthy areas it is relatively easier to perform economically (because of job opportunities, whatever) does that mean that those families who are still on FSM are "harder cases" than people on FSM in more generally deprived areas?
(I don't know if the data bears this out, but it is certainly something that could be used to challenge the FT piece - although they should have controlled for factors like this)
The case of the recent Marine convicted of manslaughter illustrates this well, and for PB movie buffs Breaker Morant has the role of atrocity vs discipline in pacification of guerillas as a central theme.
You just don't get that in London.
On the other hand both Maths and English grammar were taught very well. At that time University entrance SATS exams in the US were based exclusively on these two subjects.
American state schools really are much like the movies.
Yes, the disruptive kids are often not stupid, they just don't see the point of school and have parents that don't see the point of school either. So teach them the sort of things they'll find useful in life and guide them towards a trade rather than into a disruptive lifestyle as adults.
But yes, teach them with motivation and context. Let them learn maths in practice before doing the theory, so have them build a woooden box 24cm x 10cm and measure the lengths to learn that 5 squared plus 12 squared equals 13 squared; have them quickly add up 20,18, 18, 18 and 5, subtracting the result from 301 etc.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/coalition-mistakenly-kills-18-allied-syrian-rebels-170413132818435.html
Anyway, I'm off to finish off my last lot of GCSE coursework marking. Bye
What war stopped without politicians signing some sort of peace accord?
However, over the past month her polling has fallen from 26-27% to the 22-24% range. She has therefore shed about 10-15% of her support, which, as Mr Meeks pointed out downthread, belies the 80%+ certainty to vote figures she has been credited with.
HYUFD will point out that the 22 and 22.5% figures she scored in the Harris and Elabe polls should be ignored because they both underestimate her support in comparison to other polls. I could perhaps accept this if it were just one polling company, but two increases the chance that they could be right and the other polls wrong. Anyway, the underlying trend form all polls is that she is on a downward spiral and 22% from Harris yesterday is the lowest she has polled for over two years.
Bottom line is that she is no longer the certainty she was, to finish in the top two and at some point, it is likely that the markets will wake up to that reality and adjust accordinglly
What I would like to see is more secondary schools with sixth forms. My school didn't have one and so all they cared about was how many kids get five A to Cs including maths and English. They gave me very little guidance (and to be fair, neither did my sixth form college) over what subjects I should pick. Instead they were just like "well, your good at science so do chemistry and physics."
And whilst it probably isn't practical, I think we should abolish catchment areas. I'm sorry, but if we can't have selection by ability, we certainly shouldn't tolerate selection by house price.
Both the English educated degree holders went to University in their 20’s as mature students after working, one in industry and one in the City. The PhD holder went straight to Uni from school, then worked for about 5 years before returning to academia.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/852780264031834113
And the exasperating thing is that it used to happen. Unpack the phrase "special educational needs" for a moment. It isn't a synonym for "disabled" or "handicapped" or anything. It means just that: special, or distinct, educational needs.
Some local authorities used to do pretty much what you describe - Leicester is one example I know. There were two levels of SEN schools. S (Severe) schools were what you might traditionally think of as a "special school". But there were also M (Moderate) schools, for kids who had fallen significantly behind and were not going to progress within a mainstream school. By providing a school which could address their particular needs, while removing that from the 80% (or, more likely, 95%) task of the mainstream schools, everyone's education improved.
So what changed? Partly cost-cutting, but mostly David Blunkett. Blunkett believed that integration into mainstream schools was desirable at all costs, reportedly as a result of his own experience - even though a smart blind kid is an entirely different challenge to a physically able kid with learning difficulties. Most M schools were closed, though a few survive.
It isn't a simple panacea. I remember in Leicester there was a perpetual, and understandable, issue with parents who wanted their kids to be lawyers or doctors and simply couldn't accept that they might be better educated outside a mainstream setting. But I would love to see a Government be brave and institute a review, and possibly a local pilot, of this type of schooling. If there's any PPCs reading this, here's a policy for you, please steal it.
Surely it's very very likely to pass given the state of the media?
And I would abolish ALL religious schools too.
If the PB mods could get a header out of @ChrisinParis it would be ideal. His early tips on Fillon in the primary, Hamon in the primary, Macron as independent and Melenchon have put me in the green across the board. He knows his (French) onions!
My school tried pairing up hard-working and bone idle pupils (I was the former, of course). The result was that the former got distracted.
Similarly, I was sat next to a chain-smoker whose jacket stunk. An idiot teacher asked me if I smoked. One was not amused.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy-based_evidence_making