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.
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).
Well, we could start with "we want a minimum of 80% of pupils to achieve the following standards", "we want 99% of pupils to have basic literacy and numeracy", and "we want the top 20% of pupils to be able to achieve x, y and z". Beyond that, we can argue. We can also look at the UK as a whole right now as a baseline, and argue that any system that improves the outcomes for a given percentile (on the deprivation scale), without worsening the outcomes for others is a positive change. (Looking for pareto efficiency.)
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.
It depends what you mean by "the left".
In their pure (though not practical) forms both socialism and communism are all about equality of outcome. That's why we have never seen genuine socialism and communism - people do not like equality of outcome.
In terms of left of centre governments in this country, we have never had one that promotes equality of outcome. The focus has always been about equality of opportunity. That is certainly where I sit. One of the many flaws in Corbynism is that it veers too far towards equality of outcome. That makes it immensely unpopular - especially in marginal (more accurately, once marginal) seats. People are aspirational, they want to better their own lives and the lives of their families. Aspiration is an immensely positive force. The left only succeeds when it understands this and realises that what matters is how you enable aspiration. That, for me, is where the real political battle should be.
Put another way, the sane right wants the same things as the sane left. The argument should be about how you get there. Boiled down it is all about the role of the state and how big a part it can and should play in getting us to where we all want to be. I put myself on the centre left because I believe that a bigger state, properly managed, is more help than hindrance. As I see it, those on the centre right go the other way. Both positions are honourable and worth arguing about.
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?
If public schools are so fair how can nobody who attended one justify their existence.
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!
I think the risk you mention is a very real possibility. I think the option of laying the 1.18 on her reaching the final two is probably a safer bet (albeit at lower return) which would eliminate that risk.
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).
The big problem with 'evidence' in education lies in the mindsets of most educational researchers.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
France: I think the best result for me now would be a Macron-Fillon round 2. Unlikely, though.
Main thing is for Macron to make it. Not that I've got potential winnings like most people here, but the tips on Macron some time ago have proved sage.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Mr Dancer - that is merely excusing the inexcusable by saying it is a bit difficult and some effort is needed so let us not bother.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
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).
You just don't get that in London.
There are large swathes of London where there is virtually nobody left except pensioners who are recognisably a Londoner as they would have been characterised a generation ago. I think it also depends on the employer.
Black cabs - old Londoners; minicabs/ubers - new Londoners Royal Mail couriers/postmen - old Londoners; Amazon/Hermes etc - new Londoners
The lower the entry standard, the more likely that it is an arrival.
It plays into the point made above about certain forms of understanding and education being undervalued as well.
The 'Knowledge', as was, is a two to four year learning requirement. It comes with a significant financial commitment as well due to cab standards and such like. In duration, if nothing else, it's degree level.
Similarly, someone obtaining a full range of City and Guilds qualifications undergoes years of learning.
As a society, we seem to neither value these in the same way as a standard degree, nor do we seem to understand them and their merit.
If a full suite of City and Guilds qualifications was redefined as a BSc or MSc I think we might value these skills more highly, and also skip past the very lazy and inaccurate characterisation of C2 workers as somehow lower than the vast army of C1 drones pushing pens in white collar, entry level administrative jobs. They are often better skilled and higher paid individuals.
The idea of T levels as a tidying up of myriad technical qualifications and as comparable to A levels strikes me as a good one.
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.
I 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'd say occasionally rather than often. And it is used too much as an excuse to avoid ever attaching blame to the 'obnoxious little sh**s' [technical teachers' term] to be found in many of our classrooms.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
Surely private schools are a bigger problem for society than grammar schools?
And I would abolish ALL religious schools too.
Abolishing private schools and religious schools is highly authoritarian.
I agree, the practicality of banning them is not on. It is quite possible to design public policy to discourage them though.
No need to discourage them. They are honest to goodness businesses and should be treated as such. Those that claim to be charities should be open to all and non-fee paying.
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.
I 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 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'd say occasionally rather than often. And it is used too much as an excuse to avoid ever attaching blame to the 'obnoxious little sh**s' [technical teachers' term] to be found in many of our classrooms.
Bad teachers tend to find they have more disruptive kids in their classes than good ones.
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
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).
You just don't get that in London.
There are large swathes of London where there is virtually nobody left except pensioners who are recognisably a Londoner as they would have been characterised a generation ago. I think it also depends on the employer.
Black cabs - old Londoners; minicabs/ubers - new Londoners Royal Mail couriers/postmen - old Londoners; Amazon/Hermes etc - new Londoners
The 'Knowledge', as was, is a two to four year learning requirement. It comes with a significant financial commitment as well due to cab standards and such like. In duration, if nothing else, it's degree level.
Similarly, someone obtaining a full range of City and Guilds qualifications undergoes years of learning.
As a society, we seem to neither value these in the same way as a standard degree, nor do we seem to understand them and their merit.
If a full suite of City and Guilds qualifications was redefined as a BSc or MSc I think we might value these skills more highly, and also skip past the very lazy and inaccurate characterisation of C2 workers as somehow lower than the vast army of C1 drones pushing pens in white collar, entry level administrative jobs. They are often better skilled and higher paid individuals.
The idea of T levels as a tidying up of myriad technical qualifications and as comparable to A levels strikes me as a good one.
Taking Threequidders point, hasn’t that always be the case in London? I think I read somewhere that once upon a time infant (and child) mortality was such that without inward migration the city would have collapsed.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
When you factor in parental background and income, comprehensives also tend to outperform private schools.
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
I expect it to be Le Pen v Fillon in the second round, and the lowest turnout ever in a French presidential election.
One weird little pattern in the French betting; an inexpicable number of Ladbrokes' customers betting on François Asselineau, currently 200/1. Nobody placing bets on any of the other no-hopers and I have no idea why anyone would want to back him, he's under 1% in almost every poll. This morning I see he's at the top of the "Most Popular Bets" section on Oddschecker's front page. Something odd going on.
I'd say occasionally rather than often. And it is used too much as an excuse to avoid ever attaching blame to the 'obnoxious little sh**s' [technical teachers' term] to be found in many of our classrooms.
I was extremely disruptive in primary school. And was predicted to do very badly in the end of school SATs. Imagine their surprise when I scored highest. Learning how to pot plants and such wasn't particularly interesting.
So that's three pro-Putin candidates and one investment banker. And I therefore have to side with the former investment banker. Will this political nightmare we're living through never end?
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
When you factor in parental background and income, comprehensives also tend to outperform private schools.
if I had children of school age, I wouldn't dream of paying the outrageous fees charged by some private schools if I could send them to a decent State school, supplemented by private tuition if needed.
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.
Not in my experience: but then I teach at a grammar school...
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
I expect it to be Le Pen v Fillon in the second round, and the lowest turnout ever in a French presidential election.
Your predictions are almost always diametrically opposed to my book !
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
When you factor in parental background and income, comprehensives also tend to outperform private schools.
Surely that depends upon HOW you take into account parents?
I firmly believe that parents have a much greater effect on children than type of education or teachers ever could. A parent who reads to a child every night when they're little and instilled a love of learning will set the kid up better for life long before a child even sets foot in a school.
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
I expect it to be Le Pen v Fillon in the second round, and the lowest turnout ever in a French presidential election.
Le Pen could even win then if it was Fillon against her in the runoff and a low turnout, she could win Melenchon voters while Macron voters would stay home
One weird little pattern in the French betting; an inexpicable number of Ladbrokes' customers betting on François Asselineau, currently 200/1. Nobody placing bets on any of the other no-hopers and I have no idea why anyone would want to back him, he's under 1% in almost every poll. This morning I see he's at the top of the "Most Popular Bets" section on Oddschecker's front page. Something odd going on.
"We discount the chances of any party at 100/1 or bigger. The reverse of tweak 1 applies here. Almost all of these probably have effectively zero chance. Why don’t we just make them a bigger price? We don’t think we’ll take much extra money, certainly not enough to compensate us for the day we get it wrong."
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.
I 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 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'd say occasionally rather than often. And it is used too much as an excuse to avoid ever attaching blame to the 'obnoxious little sh**s' [technical teachers' term] to be found in many of our classrooms.
Bad teachers tend to find they have more disruptive kids in their classes than good ones.
There may be something in that but there are probably some quite good teachers (in the truest sense) who aren't good at class control. Small group or one-to-one tutoring might suit them better.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
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.
I 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 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'd say occasionally rather than often. And it is used too much as an excuse to avoid ever attaching blame to the 'obnoxious little sh**s' [technical teachers' term] to be found in many of our classrooms.
Bad teachers tend to find they have more disruptive kids in their classes than good ones.
As I said - anything to avoid blaming a child for anything, ever.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
But why don't you look at the wider, much larger evidence that shows grammar schools screw children from poorer backgrounds.
I want every child to have an awesome education, because I know it was thanks to a superb education that I got where I am today.
Grammar schools are the equivalent of the NHS only treating the non sick.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
When you factor in parental background and income, comprehensives also tend to outperform private schools.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
When you factor in parental background and income, comprehensives also tend to outperform private schools.
Surely that depends upon HOW you take into account parents?
I firmly believe that parents have a much greater effect on children than type of education or teachers ever could. A parent who reads to a child every night when they're little and instilled a love of learning will set the kid up better for life long before a child even sets foot in a school.
One weird little pattern in the French betting; an inexpicable number of Ladbrokes' customers betting on François Asselineau, currently 200/1. Nobody placing bets on any of the other no-hopers and I have no idea why anyone would want to back him, he's under 1% in almost every poll. This morning I see he's at the top of the "Most Popular Bets" section on Oddschecker's front page. Something odd going on.
He seems to be well funded. I saw a lot of his posters around Paris last week.
There may be something in that but there are probably some quite good teachers (in the truest sense) who aren't good at class control. Small group or one-to-one tutoring might suit them better.
Then they should be teaching somewhere else other than schools. Maybe a university tutor where one on one is feasible. Not at schools it isn't.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
When you factor in parental background and income, comprehensives also tend to outperform private schools.
if I had children of school age, I wouldn't dream of paying the outrageous fees charged by some private schools if I could send them to a decent State school, supplemented by private tuition if needed.
That was what the Blair's did with their under-privileged children. not good enough for Diane Abbott though - real socialists so often opt to pay. Funny that.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
When you factor in parental background and income, comprehensives also tend to outperform private schools.
Surely that depends upon HOW you take into account parents?
I firmly believe that parents have a much greater effect on children than type of education or teachers ever could. A parent who reads to a child every night when they're little and instilled a love of learning will set the kid up better for life long before a child even sets foot in a school.
Indeed - any parent prepared to nurture and push their children to achieve makes a huge difference and it works in reverse too. Precious little even the best of schools can do about it.
They may conclude that a bigger, broader union embracing Ireland and the European Union is preferable to the smaller, narrower union of a UK out on its own.
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
I expect it to be Le Pen v Fillon in the second round, and the lowest turnout ever in a French presidential election.
Le Pen could even win then if it was Fillon against her in the runoff and a low turnout, she could win Melenchon voters while Macron voters would stay home
Yep - I think she may have a better chance against Fillon than Melenchon. Macron's vote seems to be very flakey and I expect him to do worse than the polls are indicating.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
I expect it to be Le Pen v Fillon in the second round, and the lowest turnout ever in a French presidential election.
Le Pen could even win then if it was Fillon against her in the runoff and a low turnout, she could win Melenchon voters while Macron voters would stay home
As I said to you last night HYUFD, she has to make it through to the run-off first and that is not the foregone conclusion many seem to believe.
Another 22% polling score for her this morning from Ipsos. Are they a bad polling company for her too?
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
But why don't you look at the wider, much larger evidence that shows grammar schools screw children from poorer backgrounds.
I want every child to have an awesome education, because I know it was thanks to a superb education that I got where I am today.
Grammar schools are the equivalent of the NHS only treating the non sick.
As I said earlier most of the 'evidence' produced by educational researchers tends to reflect the predilections of said researchers. Even without that it is fiendishly difficult to extrapolate meaningful conclusions from the evidence.
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
I expect it to be Le Pen v Fillon in the second round, and the lowest turnout ever in a French presidential election.
Le Pen could even win then if it was Fillon against her in the runoff and a low turnout, she could win Melenchon voters while Macron voters would stay home
As I said to you last night HYUFD, she has to make it through to the run-off first and that is not the foregone conclusion many seem to believe.
Another 22% polling score for her this morning from Ipsos. Are they a bad polling company for her too?
With Ipsos she still makes the runoff and is joint top, her core vote will turnout for her, Fillon's even more so, Macron I would be less certain of
Taking Threequidders point, hasn’t that always be the case in London? I think I read somewhere that once upon a time infant (and child) mortality was such that without inward migration the city would have collapsed.
I would be surprised if that was true.
I recall reading some time ago that pre-war London was more heavily populated than it is now.
The population of London hollowed out in the 20th century, to an extent, as suburbia blossomed and new towns were built.
I think it's often misunderstood just how much many indigenous Londoners from the poorer side of the tracks loathed the place. The GLC/LCC undid the Luftwaffe's good work on slum clearance.
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
I expect it to be Le Pen v Fillon in the second round, and the lowest turnout ever in a French presidential election.
Le Pen could even win then if it was Fillon against her in the runoff and a low turnout, she could win Melenchon voters while Macron voters would stay home
Yep - I think she may have a better chance against Fillon than Melenchon. Macron's vote seems to be very flakey and I expect him to do worse than the polls are indicating.
I expect Le Pen to make the runoff and it to be a battle between Macron and Fillon to face her, unless Hamon withdraws I think Melenchon will fall short. The most likely outcome is a Le Pen v Macron runoff but the fact Fillon's vote is strongest with high turnout pensioners could see him outperform his polling
I expect it to be Le Pen v Fillon in the second round, and the lowest turnout ever in a French presidential election.
Le Pen could even win then if it was Fillon against her in the runoff and a low turnout, she could win Melenchon voters while Macron voters would stay home
As I said to you last night HYUFD, she has to make it through to the run-off first and that is not the foregone conclusion many seem to believe.
Another 22% polling score for her this morning from Ipsos. Are they a bad polling company for her too?
With Ipsos she still makes the runoff and is joint top, her core vote will turnout for her, Fillon's even more so, Macron I would be less certain of
Never mind, Opinionway poll will be out very soon.. and your illusion of reality will be restored!!!
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
But why don't you look at the wider, much larger evidence that shows grammar schools screw children from poorer backgrounds.
I want every child to have an awesome education, because I know it was thanks to a superb education that I got where I am today.
Grammar schools are the equivalent of the NHS only treating the non sick.
Singapore effectively selects at 13 and tops the PISA league tables. If you cannot afford private school fees grammars are the next best thing
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
But why don't you look at the wider, much larger evidence that shows grammar schools screw children from poorer backgrounds.
I want every child to have an awesome education, because I know it was thanks to a superb education that I got where I am today.
Grammar schools are the equivalent of the NHS only treating the non sick.
As I said earlier most of the 'evidence' produced by educational researchers tends to reflect the predilections of said researchers. Even without that it is fiendishly difficult to extrapolate meaningful conclusions from the evidence.
Grammar Hospitals selectivity treating the easy to treat. Don't give em ideas.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
One weird little pattern in the French betting; an inexpicable number of Ladbrokes' customers betting on François Asselineau, currently 200/1. Nobody placing bets on any of the other no-hopers and I have no idea why anyone would want to back him, he's under 1% in almost every poll. This morning I see he's at the top of the "Most Popular Bets" section on Oddschecker's front page. Something odd going on.
"We discount the chances of any party at 100/1 or bigger. The reverse of tweak 1 applies here. Almost all of these probably have effectively zero chance. Why don’t we just make them a bigger price? We don’t think we’ll take much extra money, certainly not enough to compensate us for the day we get it wrong."
In other words, on average, the long odds subsidise the short odds?
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Oh I agree and it is an important freedom but I deplore the fact that so many smug, privately educated posters on here like TSE constantly argue against Grammar schools which in my exeperience, in SE London consistently outperformed all of the private schools in the area they competed with, despite virtually identical intakes and at much lower cost.
When you factor in parental background and income, comprehensives also tend to outperform private schools.
Surely that depends upon HOW you take into account parents?
I firmly believe that parents have a much greater effect on children than type of education or teachers ever could. A parent who reads to a child every night when they're little and instilled a love of learning will set the kid up better for life long before a child even sets foot in a school.
Indeed - any parent prepared to nurture and push their children to achieve makes a huge difference and it works in reverse too. Precious little even the best of schools can do about it.
Indeed. One thing I can't stand is people who say they can't afford to get books for children. Not only do libraries exist but children's books are one of the cheapest forms of entertainment imaginable. Individually they're cheap anyway and places like Waterstones always have a big selection on offer like buy one get one half price. Books may become well worn but they effectively last forever too.
You can pick up two children's books for less than you can pick a single packet of fags. Two Julia Donaldson books will last longer and do more for my family than 20 Lambert and Butler ever would.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
There is everything to fear from the kind of repressive State that you wish to see.
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?
The weight of personal experience might just suggest issues with the statistical evidence....
Taking Threequidders point, hasn’t that always be the case in London? I think I read somewhere that once upon a time infant (and child) mortality was such that without inward migration the city would have collapsed.
I would be surprised if that was true.
I recall reading some time ago that pre-war London was more heavily populated than it is now.
The population of London hollowed out in the 20th century, to an extent, as suburbia blossomed and new towns were built.
I think it's often misunderstood just how much many indigenous Londoners from the poorer side of the tracks loathed the place. The GLC/LCC undid the Luftwaffe's good work on slum clearance.
The time that was once upon was pre-20th, and probably pre 19th C.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
That's like saying "there's nothing to fear from Communism".
In theory, yes. As implemented by humans: it's a dreadful existence
Meritocracy tends to result in people hiring others from similar backgrounds to themselves and crushes diversity of experience and perspective
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
There is everything to fear from the kind of repressive State that you wish to see.
That's a bit of hyperbole for a beautiful good Friday morning. Not having top jobs and certain professions clogged up with mediocre people who bought their position is a good thing.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
That's like saying "there's nothing to fear from Communism".
In theory, yes. As implemented by humans: it's a dreadful existence
Meritocracy tends to result in people hiring others from similar backgrounds to themselves and crushes diversity of experience and perspective
Diversity of experience and perspective is crushed by the old school tie and family connections. Mediocrity persists for generations.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
That's like saying "there's nothing to fear from Communism".
In theory, yes. As implemented by humans: it's a dreadful existence
Meritocracy tends to result in people hiring others from similar backgrounds to themselves and crushes diversity of experience and perspective
Arguing against meritocracy from a position of extreme privilege is brave...
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
That's like saying "there's nothing to fear from Communism".
In theory, yes. As implemented by humans: it's a dreadful existence
Meritocracy tends to result in people hiring others from similar backgrounds to themselves and crushes diversity of experience and perspective
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?
The thing i find strange is that it's largely people on the right of politics who believe in grammar schools as an article of faith.
Generally speaking they lack confidence in government doing things well... Except when it comes to grammar schools.
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?
The weight of personal experience might just suggest issues with the statistical evidence....
In medicine we were taught, at least in the 1990’s, to be careful of confusing personal experience with the general. Many was the medic who was amazed to find that his (or her) half dozen person experiences of a drug were by no means those of the majority of his or her colleagues.
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?
The weight of personal experience might just suggest issues with the statistical evidence....
Reminiscent of the same tin ear that the Remainers had on immigration during the referendum campaign. Statistics! Maths! You plebs know nothing, your personal experiences are worthless in the face our superior maths!
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
That's like saying "there's nothing to fear from Communism".
In theory, yes. As implemented by humans: it's a dreadful existence
Meritocracy tends to result in people hiring others from similar backgrounds to themselves and crushes diversity of experience and perspective
Arguing against meritocracy from a position of extreme privilege is brave...
Trying to create the perfect meritocracy is like trying to create the perfect socialist society or any other utopia. In reality it requires massive coercion by the State.
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
That's like saying "there's nothing to fear from Communism".
In theory, yes. As implemented by humans: it's a dreadful existence
Meritocracy tends to result in people hiring others from similar backgrounds to themselves and crushes diversity of experience and perspective
Arguing against meritocracy from a position of extreme privilege is brave...
Trying to create the perfect meritocracy is like trying to create the perfect socialist society or any other utopia. In reality it requires massive coercion by the State.
Again hyperbole. No one is arguing for perfection. Just something better than this sorry state.
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.
That is very odd table: most pupils come from families with below median income. Does this mean that poorer people have more children or that more children make you poorer?
Mr. Felix, public schools reduce the pressure on the state sector whilst maintaining its funding.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
One could say the same of any kind of activity that is not controlled by the State, such as membership of golf clubs, churches, the Womens' Institute, football clubs etc.
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
I don't want to live in a society where paying to attend a specific school or course enables second rate people to trump genuine talent.
The only way to ensure such a thing (assuming that it's possible to ensure such a thing) is to make society very unfree.
Nope. It would be more free.
That's like arguing that abolishing private property would make society more free.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Many more people are excluded by these social networks than benefit from them. There is nothing to fear from a meritocracy.
That's like saying "there's nothing to fear from Communism".
In theory, yes. As implemented by humans: it's a dreadful existence
Meritocracy tends to result in people hiring others from similar backgrounds to themselves and crushes diversity of experience and perspective
Arguing against meritocracy from a position of extreme privilege is brave...
Trying to create the perfect meritocracy is like trying to create the perfect socialist society or any other utopia. In reality it requires massive coercion by the State.
Again hyperbole. No one is arguing for perfection. Just something better than this sorry state.
This "sorry state" really isn't that bad, by most historical or international measures. And, I'm convinced that your proposals would make life worse, not better.
Comments
As mentioned below, it'd be good to hear from Mr. Paris.
In their pure (though not practical) forms both socialism and communism are all about equality of outcome. That's why we have never seen genuine socialism and communism - people do not like equality of outcome.
In terms of left of centre governments in this country, we have never had one that promotes equality of outcome. The focus has always been about equality of opportunity. That is certainly where I sit. One of the many flaws in Corbynism is that it veers too far towards equality of outcome. That makes it immensely unpopular - especially in marginal (more accurately, once marginal) seats. People are aspirational, they want to better their own lives and the lives of their families. Aspiration is an immensely positive force. The left only succeeds when it understands this and realises that what matters is how you enable aspiration. That, for me, is where the real political battle should be.
Put another way, the sane right wants the same things as the sane left. The argument should be about how you get there. Boiled down it is all about the role of the state and how big a part it can and should play in getting us to where we all want to be. I put myself on the centre left because I believe that a bigger state, properly managed, is more help than hindrance. As I see it, those on the centre right go the other way. Both positions are honourable and worth arguing about.
Similar to private healthcare. It eases the burden on the NHS, but those who use it still fund the NHS.
Also, suppose public schools were banned. We'd simply see an increase in what currently happens, as rich parents flock to the vicinity of good state schools, driving up house prices. A very similar effect would occur, except that there would now be no extra funding for schools coupled with an increase in demand.
Main thing is for Macron to make it. Not that I've got potential winnings like most people here, but the tips on Macron some time ago have proved sage.
C U later
Black cabs - old Londoners; minicabs/ubers - new Londoners
Royal Mail couriers/postmen - old Londoners; Amazon/Hermes etc - new Londoners
The lower the entry standard, the more likely that it is an arrival.
It plays into the point made above about certain forms of understanding and education being undervalued as well.
The 'Knowledge', as was, is a two to four year learning requirement. It comes with a significant financial commitment as well due to cab standards and such like. In duration, if nothing else, it's degree level.
Similarly, someone obtaining a full range of City and Guilds qualifications undergoes years of learning.
As a society, we seem to neither value these in the same way as a standard degree, nor do we seem to understand them and their merit.
If a full suite of City and Guilds qualifications was redefined as a BSc or MSc I think we might value these skills more highly, and also skip past the very lazy and inaccurate characterisation of C2 workers as somehow lower than the vast army of C1 drones pushing pens in white collar, entry level administrative jobs. They are often better skilled and higher paid individuals.
The idea of T levels as a tidying up of myriad technical qualifications and as comparable to A levels strikes me as a good one.
Some interesting and polite debate this AM.
If Red Bull had a good race in Bahrain, I think it could fall quite a bit, maybe mid-teens or a bit lower.
That said, I think they'll not have a good race. But, we'll see. Russia might be better (from a Red Bull perspective).
Mr. Jonathan, bugger. I must've been sick on the day we got taught Old Boy Network Shenanigans...
[If anyone would like to offer me a job based on my schooling, I'm open to offers].
Mrs C, or it's allowing for free enterprise in a free society. Would you ban people from using private healthcare or private schooling?
I don't want to live in the kind of society where the State bans or discriminates against private institutions in the name of promoting merit, or equality.
There's an old Chinese saying, more or less: "There's no need to be afraid of the government, until it tries to govern you."
[Used it in my forthcoming Chinesey/Robin Hoodish serial].
Macron 22 ( -2)
Le Pen 22 (-2)
Melenchon 20 (+1.5)
Fillon 19 (+1)
All four covered by just 3 points now
http://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2017/article/2017/04/14/presidentielle-le-pen-macron-melenchon-fillon-au-coude-a-coude_5111191_4854003.html
This morning I see he's at the top of the "Most Popular Bets" section on Oddschecker's front page.
Something odd going on.
Back to the marking!
I firmly believe that parents have a much greater effect on children than type of education or teachers ever could. A parent who reads to a child every night when they're little and instilled a love of learning will set the kid up better for life long before a child even sets foot in a school.
I want every child to have an awesome education, because I know it was thanks to a superb education that I got where I am today.
Grammar schools are the equivalent of the NHS only treating the non sick.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/grammar-school-fans-know-theyre-worse-for-less-abl/
Brexit challenges the identity of Ulster unionism
They may conclude that a bigger, broader union embracing Ireland and the European Union is preferable to the smaller, narrower union of a UK out on its own.
Another 22% polling score for her this morning from Ipsos. Are they a bad polling company for her too?
I recall reading some time ago that pre-war London was more heavily populated than it is now.
The population of London hollowed out in the 20th century, to an extent, as suburbia blossomed and new towns were built.
I think it's often misunderstood just how much many indigenous Londoners from the poorer side of the tracks loathed the place. The GLC/LCC undid the Luftwaffe's good work on slum clearance.
Hmm.
A society which banned anyone from offering private educational services would be a horrible place in which to live.
Apologies for the rubbish false start yesterday following BBC speculation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39599645
You can pick up two children's books for less than you can pick a single packet of fags. Two Julia Donaldson books will last longer and do more for my family than 20 Lambert and Butler ever would.
In theory, yes. As implemented by humans: it's a dreadful existence
Meritocracy tends to result in people hiring others from similar backgrounds to themselves and crushes diversity of experience and perspective
http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-brussels-suggests-norway-model-for-uk-after-brexit-talks-negotiations/
Le Pen 23 (-1)
Macron 22 (-1)
Fillon 20 (=)
Melenchon 17 (=)
http://presicote.factoviz.com/index/more/id/qoo_lew_1
Fillon v Le Pen and Melenchon v Macron would be the two tightest races. In both cases, turnout would probably be very low.
Generally speaking they lack confidence in government doing things well... Except when it comes to grammar schools.