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!
It is not a huge surprise that those who went to grammar school felt it was a huge benefit to them. I went to one and it certainly was for me. But the argument is not about that, is it? It's much more about whether grammars benefit working class kids overall. Given that the vast majority of working class kids have never been to grammar schools, the anecdotes of those who did are always going to represent a very small sample.
That's a nice divided electorate there. Seems like the only thing the french agree on is they don't want Le Pen to win.
It will be hilarious if a system designed to stop an extremist from winning produces a runoff between Le Pen and Melenchon.
Hilarious is an odd way to describe what could be a disastrous outcome.
It is now "too close to call" regarding which of the leading 4 will make it to the second round. Macron and Le Pen are steadily losing ground and Melenchon is coming up rapidly in the left lane. Betting on the outcome is becoming significantly more uncertain. If the final round is between Le Pen and Melenchon, I suspect that French folk will opt for the neo-Fascist rather than the neo-Communist, whatever they might tell opinion pollsters. Le Pen has virtually no chance if she faces one of the other 2 in the run-off.
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.
Not in my experience. Firms hire the best people for the most part at levels where performance makes a difference. There are very few public school boys (and relatively few Brits) in my industry for example
That's a nice divided electorate there. Seems like the only thing the french agree on is they don't want Le Pen to win.
It will be hilarious if a system designed to stop an extremist from winning produces a runoff between Le Pen and Melenchon.
It is now "too close to call" regarding which of the leading 4 will make it to the second round. Macron and Le Pen are steadily losing ground and Melenchon is coming up rapidly in the left lane. Betting on the outcome is becoming significantly more uncertain. If the final round is between Le Pen and Melenchon, I suspect that French folk will opt for the neo-Fascist rather than the neo-Communist, whatever they might tell opinion pollsters. Le Pen has virtually no chance if she faces one of the other 2 in the run-off.
I'm glad I'm green on this rollercoaster. I suspect Melenchon will prove to be a temporary phase. However, I think you are correct - if it is Le Pen vs Melanchon, then the right win.
"The British government is slowly realising Brexit is “an act of great self-harm” and that upcoming EU-UK negotiations must seek to limit the damage, the [Irish] State’s top Brexit official has said."
The term "meritocracy" was originally intended as a negative concept.[52] One of the primary concerns with meritocracy is the unclear definition of "merit".[53] What is considered as meritorious can differ with opinions as on which qualities are considered the most worthy, raising the question of which "merit" is the highest — or, in other words, which standard is the "best" standard. As the supposed effectiveness of a meritocracy is based on the supposed competence of its officials, this standard of merit cannot be arbitrary and has to also reflect the competencies required for their roles.
The reliability of the authority and system that assesses each individual's merit is another point of concern. As a meritocratic system relies on a standard of merit to measure and compare people against, the system by which this is done has to be reliable to ensure that their assessed merit accurately reflects their potential capabilities. Standardized testing, which reflects the meritocratic sorting process, has come under criticism for being rigid and unable to accurately assess many valuable qualities nor the potential of students. Education theorist Bill Ayers, commenting on the limitations of standardized testing, writes that "Standardized tests can't measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes. What they can measure and count are isolated skills, specific facts and function, content knowledge, the least interesting and least significant aspects of learning."[54] Merit determined through the opinionated evaluations of teachers, while being able to assess the valuable qualities that cannot be assessed by standardized testing, are unreliable as the opinions, insights, biases, and standards of the teachers vary greatly. If the system of evaluation is corrupt, non-transparent, opinionated or misguided, decisions regarding who has the highest merit can be highly fallible
"The British government is slowly realising Brexit is “an act of great self-harm” and that upcoming EU-UK negotiations must seek to limit the damage, the [Irish] State’s top Brexit official has said."
That's two Euro articles in a row where the EU seem rather keen on keeping access to the UK's market.
"The British government is slowly realising Brexit is “an act of great self-harm” and that upcoming EU-UK negotiations must seek to limit the damage, the [Irish] State’s top Brexit official has said."
He's entitled to his opinion, but I doubt if our government agrees.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage this is then enhanced by better teachers teaching in an environment that is more conducive to learning and where the ethos is positively directed to learning. The result is that the differential in performance between those who get in and those who don't goes from large to massive creating a level of difference that is unlikely to be overcome in the rest of the child's life.
I have sought to give my children this advantage by sending them to a private school and I can understand why some might think this unfair or not create an equal society. Personally, the answer to that is tough. I am willing to spend the money to give them their best chance in life.
But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
"The British government is slowly realising Brexit is “an act of great self-harm” and that upcoming EU-UK negotiations must seek to limit the damage, the [Irish] State’s top Brexit official has said."
The British government is run by a remainer, who by definition thought Brexit would be more harmful than beneficial, so even if they are right, I don't know why you breathlessly post such outside speculation as though it is a damning new revelation.
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.
Not in my experience. Firms hire the best people for the most part at levels where performance makes a difference. There are very few public school boys (and relatively few Brits) in my industry for example
Pole dancing is very open profession. With hip moves like yours Charles you were bound to succeed.
That's a nice divided electorate there. Seems like the only thing the french agree on is they don't want Le Pen to win.
It will be hilarious if a system designed to stop an extremist from winning produces a runoff between Le Pen and Melenchon.
Hilarious is an odd way to describe what could be a disastrous outcome.
It is now "too close to call" regarding which of the leading 4 will make it to the second round. Macron and Le Pen are steadily losing ground and Melenchon is coming up rapidly in the left lane. Betting on the outcome is becoming significantly more uncertain. If the final round is between Le Pen and Melenchon, I suspect that French folk will opt for the neo-Fascist rather than the neo-Communist, whatever they might tell opinion pollsters. Le Pen has virtually no chance if she faces one of the other 2 in the run-off.
Well, as David Herdson has said numerous times, the French system is pretty awful. If they were using AV, it's unlikely that either Le Pen or Melenchon would win.
From a betting perspective, I hope you're right about Le Pen having no chance against Macron/Fillon. The combination that worries me is Fillon/Melenchon.
Why can't Theresa May's team see just how toxic this grammar school policy is in the wider UK?
By 'wider UK' I assume you mean Scotland.
Now as education is a devolved issue what concern is it of the 'wider UK' whether there are a few new grammar schools in England ?
According to yougov 34% want more grammars (including a majority of Tory voters), 25% to close existing ones (including a plurality of Labour voters) and 20% to keep existing ones but not open any more https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852421820351381504
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, 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.
Not in my experience. Firms hire the best people for the most part at levels where performance makes a difference. There are very few public school boys (and relatively few Brits) in my industry for example
Your family's wealth bestowed huge advantages on you that you have made the most of. You took what was given and ran with it. That is to your credit.
The weak performance of UK industry in so many areas over a long time period, though, surely indicates that there is some truth in the argument that those doing the hiring tend to hire "people like them". That may be because they do not know how to identify real talent because they are themselves mediocre.
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.
Take London our of the stats and the amount of British workers in retail / restaurants / hotels might be over 90%.
The whole 'the locals aren't willing to do the work' issue is really a London problem and a problem London has brought upon itself with its housing policies.
That's a nice divided electorate there. Seems like the only thing the french agree on is they don't want Le Pen to win.
It will be hilarious if a system designed to stop an extremist from winning produces a runoff between Le Pen and Melenchon.
It is now "too close to call" regarding which of the leading 4 will make it to the second round. Macron and Le Pen are steadily losing ground and Melenchon is coming up rapidly in the left lane. Betting on the outcome is becoming significantly more uncertain. If the final round is between Le Pen and Melenchon, I suspect that French folk will opt for the neo-Fascist rather than the neo-Communist, whatever they might tell opinion pollsters. Le Pen has virtually no chance if she faces one of the other 2 in the run-off.
I'm glad I'm green on this rollercoaster. I suspect Melenchon will prove to be a temporary phase. However, I think you are correct - if it is Le Pen vs Melanchon, then the right win.
In LePen vs Melenchon I think the polls show a comfortable Melenchon win.
A lot of FN support comes from regions where the Communists had strong support. I can see LePen shedding some core support to him.
Neither would be even close to having a majority in the assembly. Gridlock would be a certainty.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
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!
No I don't think it was that. The bare truth was that, as a member of the single market, there was nothing that could have been done, save for tinkering around the edges, about free movement. It became crystal clear throughout the campaign that Remain simply didn't have an answer (most memorably, for me, on DP when Gisela Stuart and Nick Herbert were discussing and there was simply no meaningful response to her charges about immigration).
That's a nice divided electorate there. Seems like the only thing the french agree on is they don't want Le Pen to win.
It will be hilarious if a system designed to stop an extremist from winning produces a runoff between Le Pen and Melenchon.
It is now "too close to call" regarding which of the leading 4 will make it to the second round. Macron and Le Pen are steadily losing ground and Melenchon is coming up rapidly in the left lane. Betting on the outcome is becoming significantly more uncertain. If the final round is between Le Pen and Melenchon, I suspect that French folk will opt for the neo-Fascist rather than the neo-Communist, whatever they might tell opinion pollsters. Le Pen has virtually no chance if she faces one of the other 2 in the run-off.
I'm glad I'm green on this rollercoaster. I suspect Melenchon will prove to be a temporary phase. However, I think you are correct - if it is Le Pen vs Melanchon, then the right win.
In LePen vs Melenchon I think the polls show a comfortable Melenchon win.
A lot of FN support comes from regions where the Communists had strong support. I can see LePen shedding some core support to him.
Neither would be even close to having a majority in the assembly. Gridlock would be a certainty.
I'm not so sure if that would be the case in practice. Surely any property owner would see Le Pen as the lesser evil?
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, demand.
Public schools create a social network that acts against merit. A massive cost.
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.
Your family's wealth bestowed huge advantages on you that you have made the most of. You took what was given and ran with it. That is to your credit.
The weak performance of UK industry in so many areas over a long time period, though, surely indicates that there is some truth in the argument that those doing the hiring tend to hire "people like them". That may be because they do not know how to identify real talent because they are themselves mediocre.
One of the great ironies in our great democratic market economy is that so many of the companies within it are run in a very old school authoritarian way. The nearest in the west we have to North Korea is to be found is some of our boardrooms.
Not in my experience. Firms hire the best people for the most part at levels where performance makes a difference. There are very few public school boys (and relatively few Brits) in my industry for example
Pole dancing is very open profession. With hip moves like yours Charles you were bound to succeed.
There are times when what I do doesn't seem too different!
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
You haven't been listening properly. The government has already backtracked on those in relation to the 'transition'. They will not have much choice in the matter (and rightly so).
The weak performance of UK industry in so many areas over a long time period, though, surely indicates that there is some truth in the argument that those doing the hiring tend to hire "people like them". That may be because they do not know how to identify real talent because they are themselves mediocre.
That is certainly possible - but I'm not sure that an insistence on "meritocracy" as a buzzword is a solution. There needs to be more focus on fixing the underlying problems (that's why, for instance, I am a fan of academic setting rather than grammar schools: while learning is most effective in cohorts of similar ability, there needs to be the flexibility to shift as people develop at different rates & the ethos of the school as a whole benefits from the most dedicated/smartest).
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
You haven't been listening properly. The government has already backtracked on those in relation to the 'transition'. They will not have much choice in the matter (and rightly so).
There's an awful lot of wishful thinking in your belief that deep down, we're all European federalists at heart.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage this is then enhanced by better teachers teaching in an environment that is more conducive to learning and where the ethos is positively directed to learning. The result is that the differential in performance between those who get in and those who don't goes from large to massive creating a level of difference that is unlikely to be overcome in the rest of the child's life.
I have sought to give my children this advantage by sending them to a private school and I can understand why some might think this unfair or not create an equal society. Personally, the answer to that is tough. I am willing to spend the money to give them their best chance in life.
But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
The only genuinely equal solution is for all children to go to a randomly selected school.
Although there would still be differences in their home background so perhaps we should have randomly selected parents as well.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
It is not a huge surprise that those who went to grammar school felt it was a huge benefit to them. I went to one and it certainly was for me. But the argument is not about that, is it? It's much more about whether grammars benefit working class kids overall. Given that the vast majority of working class kids have never been to grammar schools, the anecdotes of those who did are always going to represent a very small sample.
It's not even that. It's being told by private school educated types that the education they received should be reserved for those who can afford it. As you know I'm not convinced either way on grammars, I think they have a role to play but there are more important things to fix in the education system. It's the same as being told by £500k per year lawyers that immigration is a net positive because it keeps the price of Costa coffee down.
I also believe that the statistics suffer from a fundamental flaw that they don't go on to measure life outcomes of those who go through the grammar system vs those who don't. Educational achievement is just one of the ways in which grammar schools are important, it's also giving kids from ordinary backgrounds high expectations for the rest of their lives. At my school the teachers expected nothing less than the best, it has given me a similar outlook in life and the same is true for most of my school friends, despite a lot of us coming from modest backgrounds we've all done very well in later life because no one is willing to settle for "good enough" which seems to pervade the rest of the state sector.
I also think the education sector is too one dimensional, it's educational achievement or nothing. Technical education in this country is shockingly poor. We need to improve other aspects of our education system before looking at how to improve selection for grammar schools. It is one of those "nice to haves" in a perfect system like Switzerland, not something we should be prioritising in our broken system.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
You haven't been listening properly. The government has already backtracked on those in relation to the 'transition'. They will not have much choice in the matter (and rightly so).
The transition starts March 2019. There is an election less than 14 months later. I wouldn't bet on the government agreeing to anything that will lose them an election.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
You haven't been listening properly. The government has already backtracked on those in relation to the 'transition'. They will not have much choice in the matter (and rightly so).
No they haven't. There is every difference between us agreeing an interim deal that gives EU citizens meeting certain criteria freedom to come here and being subject to the jurisdiction of the CJE or not being able to change our mind in respect of that movement if it is not suiting us. These are important differences and will take us far from the Norway model.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage this is then enhanced by better teachers teaching in an environment that is more conducive to learning and where the ethos is positively directed to learning. The result is that the differential in performance between those who get in and those who don't goes from large to massive creating a level of difference that is unlikely to be overcome in the rest of the child's life.
I have sought to give my children this advantage by sending them to a private school and I can understand why some might think this unfair or not create an equal society. Personally, the answer to that is tough. I am willing to spend the money to give them their best chance in life.
But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
That's one view. Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars.
The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in Kent, but I think that individual grammars are perfectly defensible as part of a pluralist system.
The other point about existing statistics so frequently quoted is that they do not differentiate between the old style Kent system (where there is a kind of educational apartheid of the kind which created the resentment that destroyed the post war consensus), and the majority of England where there are relatively few surviving grammars.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage this is then enhanced by better teachers teaching in an environment that is more conducive to learning and where the ethos is positively directed to learning. The result is that the differential in performance between those who get in and those who don't goes from large to massive creating a level of difference that is unlikely to be overcome in the rest of the child's life.
I have sought to give my children this advantage by sending them to a private school and I can understand why some might think this unfair or not create an equal society. Personally, the answer to that is tough. I am willing to spend the money to give them their best chance in life.
But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
The only genuinely equal solution is for all children to go to a randomly selected school.
Although there would still be differences in their home background so perhaps we should have randomly selected parents as well.
Sparta was probably the only society that tried something like that. The State effectively became the parent of all Sparta boys, and was entirely responsible from their upbringing from the age of seven.
Clearly the only solution to the education conundrum is to take all babies into state institutions where they can all receive the same level of support and education and then return them to society at the age of 18.
I missed this yesterday from Abbott. It is pure comedy gold:
“Compared to all his critics, Jeremy Corbyn is worth about 18-20 percentage points to Labour’s vote. Without him, and led by any one of his vocal critics we could easily be languishing in single digits in polls.”
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
You haven't been listening properly. The government has already backtracked on those in relation to the 'transition'. They will not have much choice in the matter (and rightly so).
There's an awful lot of wishful thinking in your belief that deep down, we're all European federalists at heart.
Belief in the union seems to be strong. The United Kingdom will not be able to play that role for very much longer.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
I think they will stick for some time, but I expect discontent to rise fairly rapidly if the EU fails to deliver a deal that is acceptable for Ireland.
I also expect that Ireland's US friendly tax regimes will rapidly come under fire.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
I think they will stay, but the EU will become less popular
they will be net contributors from now on the financial crisis and the way they were treated damaged Europe they depend too much on tax rates, which can change at any time
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage this is then enhanced by better teachers teaching in an environment that is more conducive to learning and where the ethos is positively directed to learning. The result is that the differential in performance between those who get in and those who don't goes from large to massive creating a level of difference that is unlikely to be overcome in the rest of the child's life.
I have sought to give my children this advantage by sending them to a private school and I can understand why some might think this unfair or not create an equal society. Personally, the answer to that is tough. I am willing to spend the money to give them their best chance in life.
But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
The only genuinely equal solution is for all children to go to a randomly selected school.
Although there would still be differences in their home background so perhaps we should have randomly selected parents as well.
Or we can deal with society as it is and just try not to make things worse.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
I think they will stick for some time, but I expect discontent to rise fairly rapidly if the EU fails to deliver a deal that is acceptable for Ireland.
I also expect that Ireland's US friendly tax regimes will rapidly come under fire.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
But what it comes down to is that you care more about your own children than other people's children. That's only natural, but I would suggest that grammar schools produce adults that can go toe to toe with those that have been privately educated.
I totally accept what @rcs1000 and others on here say about us not really needing to worry about the top 20% as they take care of themselves, but it really grates when those who are able to extract their own kids from the state system are prepared to give an opinion on what the state system should be.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
I agree with this but it is very, very much in Ireland's interests that we have as free a trade arrangement with the EU as possible. That should prove helpful to some degree although the EU tends to ignore the interests of its smaller members.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Clearly the only solution to the education conundrum is to take all babies into state institutions where they can all receive the same level of support and education and then return them to society at the age of 18.
It's either that or sterilise all of the Chavs.
Have you seen the cost of keeping a child in state care ? (At least 3x Eton's fees.)
I see there's a bit of click bait in the Huffington Post calling for the disenfranchisement of White male voters. I wonder if that will become a serious proposal from a left wing party.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
But what it comes down to is that you care more about your own children than other people's children. That's only natural, but I would suggest that grammar schools produce adults that can go toe to toe with those that have been privately educated.
I totally accept what @rcs1000 and others on here say about us not really needing to worry about the top 20% as they take care of themselves, but it really grates when those who are able to extract their own kids from the state system are prepared to give an opinion on what the state system should be.
I can see that but as someone who pays a fair dod of tax towards that system I am entitled to a view on how we get the best bang for our bucks. And I completely agree with Robert that he bottom 80% are the issue. Adult illiteracy is rife in this country as is a lack of basic numeracy. This has major economic effects on productivity and the utility of training. If we are to make a success of our country going forward in the EU or out of it we must focus on the majority of children who are being failed by the current process rather than making things even better for those doing fine.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
"Jeremy Corbyn’s party saw their support slide by 8.2 per cent in the ward in the Brexit-backing city of Middlesborough."
First of all, it is Middlesbrough.
Secondly, it is a town, not a city.
Thirdly, as party is singular, shouldn't it be 'saw its' rather than 'saw their'?
Fourthly, the Labour vote fell by 8.2 percentage points rather than by 8.2%.
Otherwise, spot on reporting.
The article may be crap, but the facts on the ground remain: Corbyn is pure electoral toxin. The County elections are going to be fun for the party.
And if this is what Labour's worst case results are expected to be:
' However, senior allies of Corbyn fear there could be a renewed effort by Labour rebels to challenge him for the leadership if the party’s local election results are very poor, with some estimates suggesting dozens of council seats could be lost. '
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
But what it comes down to is that you care more about your own children than other people's children. That's only natural, but I would suggest that grammar schools produce adults that can go toe to toe with those that have been privately educated.
I totally accept what @rcs1000 and others on here say about us not really needing to worry about the top 20% as they take care of themselves, but it really grates when those who are able to extract their own kids from the state system are prepared to give an opinion on what the state system should be.
I can see that but as someone who pays a fair dod of tax towards that system I am entitled to a view on how we get the best bang for our bucks. And I completely agree with Robert that he bottom 80% are the issue. Adult illiteracy is rife in this country as is a lack of basic numeracy. This has major economic effects on productivity and the utility of training. If we are to make a success of our country going forward in the EU or out of it we must focus on the majority of children who are being failed by the current process rather than making things even better for those doing fine.
No, what grates is someone who is effectively arguing 'ignore the bright kids, they'll do fine', while opting out of the system.
I missed this yesterday from Abbott. It is pure comedy gold:
“Compared to all his critics, Jeremy Corbyn is worth about 18-20 percentage points to Labour’s vote. Without him, and led by any one of his vocal critics we could easily be languishing in single digits in polls.”
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
That must be a Freudian slip given who it came from!
Edit - no, it seems deliberate.
However, Rayner is herself also less than honest with statsistics. The reality is of course that in only two counties (off the top of my head) have a compulsory 11-plus. In those counties (like say, Gloucestershire) which have an extensive grammar school system but where selection is not compulsory it is the pushier parents (who tend to be middle class) who put their children in for the exam, and therefore by an astonishing coincidence dominate the intake.
The counties that should be used for statistics are Buckinghamshire and Kent, not the country as a whole.
Point of information (about Bucks at least): the system is opt out, rather than opt in. It is also possible to apply from 'out of county'. It is not actually compulsory, although that is a decent short hand for the effect.
Thank you - so we're down to one unless Kent has a similar system. That out of county system could skew the stats even further.
However, even in the 1960s grammars had a reputation for middle-class dominance (deserved or not).
In my experience from attending a Boys' Grammar School in Pembrokeshire beginning in the mid-1960s, the social background of pupils was largely lower middle class and upper working class. Quite a few farmers' sons were there.
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!
No I don't think it was that. The bare truth was that, as a member of the single market, there was nothing that could have been done, save for tinkering around the edges, about free movement. It became crystal clear throughout the campaign that Remain simply didn't have an answer (most memorably, for me, on DP when Gisela Stuart and Nick Herbert were discussing and there was simply no meaningful response to her charges about immigration).
But we digress...
Yes. It was embarrassing watching politicians prevaricate when the truth of it was... If you want the end of freedom of movement then you should vote to leave the EU.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Well I am glad we agree on Norway.
I expect us to have a free trade arrangement, to be out of the customs union (which will create some paperwork for exports with imported components), to have special transitional arrangements allowing easy access of EU citizens to the UK, possibly with some minimum earning requirement, to have an acceptable equivalence to UK and EU financial regulation, to continue working with the EU on security, aviation, IP rights and possibly a few other things (which will include continuing to pay our share of the cost of such things) and generally for this to seem a bit of a damp squib in the short to medium term. I don't see diamond hard Brexits as the alternative, not at all.
Without the 're-accommodation' incident, this would just be an amusing by-line.
The most sensible thing United could do is to look at court awards in similar cases and offer the average amount as compensation and an apology. If the Dr turned it down I doubt he would get much sympathy in court (based on my own experiences, I am fairly certain that in a UK court, if you turn down a favourable resolution, the court has little time for you). It would also probably help rehabilitate United's PR image on the grounds that it has admitted its fault and made reparations and short-circuited a lengthy court battle.
Serious question, Yes many are still suffering but for the vast majority of people why do we need a labour govt? Wee have universal healthcare, universal education, JSa for when you can't work unions if you want to join, housing benefits for the poorest, council housing can even be passed on children. One the last thing we need a centre left govt to solve is end of life care but for MOST people we no longer NEED a labour government, they have done what we needed them to do.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Well I am glad we agree on Norway.
I expect us to have a free trade arrangement, to be out of the customs union (which will create some paperwork for exports with imported components), to have special transitional arrangements allowing easy access of EU citizens to the UK, possibly with some minimum earning requirement, to have an acceptable equivalence to UK and EU financial regulation, to continue working with the EU on security, aviation, IP rights and possibly a few other things (which will include continuing to pay our share of the cost of such things) and generally for this to seem a bit of a damp squib in the short to medium term. I don't see diamond hard Brexits as the alternative, not at all.
Given the Norway option requires no new controls on free movement and no reductions in contributions to the EU I cannot see May agreeing to it without committing political suicide. However it may be an option for a future Labour government if they finally move on from Corbynism
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
Those odds look nuts, Le Pen and Macron's polling positions have weakened noticeably in the last week. Last four polls have Mélenchon at 17. 19, 19 and 20%. Top 4 are basically covered by margin of error at this stage, incredible.
Serious question, Yes many are still suffering but for the vast majority of people why do we need a labour govt? Wee have universal healthcare, universal education, JSa for when you can't work unions if you want to join, housing benefits for the poorest, council housing can even be passed on children. One the last thing we need a centre left govt to solve is end of life care but for MOST people we no longer NEED a labour government, they have done what we needed them to do.
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
I think the fact that Le Pen still polls strongly with 35 to 64s to add to her strong performance with the young should ensure she gets to the runoff regardless. Melenchon does poorly with older voters and given his reliance on the young is unlikely to make the runoff which leaves it between Macron and Fillon for the runoff spot and while I would give Macron the advantage Fillon's high score with the over 65s will make it tight
Comments
Now as education is a devolved issue what concern is it of the 'wider UK' whether there are a few new grammar schools in England ?
It is now "too close to call" regarding which of the leading 4 will make it to the second round. Macron and Le Pen are steadily losing ground and Melenchon is coming up rapidly in the left lane. Betting on the outcome is becoming significantly more uncertain. If the final round is between Le Pen and Melenchon, I suspect that French folk will opt for the neo-Fascist rather than the neo-Communist, whatever they might tell opinion pollsters. Le Pen has virtually no chance if she faces one of the other 2 in the run-off.
"The British government is slowly realising Brexit is “an act of great self-harm” and that upcoming EU-UK negotiations must seek to limit the damage, the [Irish] State’s top Brexit official has said."
But this isn't an argument about me:
From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Criticism
The term "meritocracy" was originally intended as a negative concept.[52] One of the primary concerns with meritocracy is the unclear definition of "merit".[53] What is considered as meritorious can differ with opinions as on which qualities are considered the most worthy, raising the question of which "merit" is the highest — or, in other words, which standard is the "best" standard. As the supposed effectiveness of a meritocracy is based on the supposed competence of its officials, this standard of merit cannot be arbitrary and has to also reflect the competencies required for their roles.
The reliability of the authority and system that assesses each individual's merit is another point of concern. As a meritocratic system relies on a standard of merit to measure and compare people against, the system by which this is done has to be reliable to ensure that their assessed merit accurately reflects their potential capabilities. Standardized testing, which reflects the meritocratic sorting process, has come under criticism for being rigid and unable to accurately assess many valuable qualities nor the potential of students. Education theorist Bill Ayers, commenting on the limitations of standardized testing, writes that "Standardized tests can't measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes. What they can measure and count are isolated skills, specific facts and function, content knowledge, the least interesting and least significant aspects of learning."[54] Merit determined through the opinionated evaluations of teachers, while being able to assess the valuable qualities that cannot be assessed by standardized testing, are unreliable as the opinions, insights, biases, and standards of the teachers vary greatly. If the system of evaluation is corrupt, non-transparent, opinionated or misguided, decisions regarding who has the highest merit can be highly fallible
Having had this substantial advantage this is then enhanced by better teachers teaching in an environment that is more conducive to learning and where the ethos is positively directed to learning. The result is that the differential in performance between those who get in and those who don't goes from large to massive creating a level of difference that is unlikely to be overcome in the rest of the child's life.
I have sought to give my children this advantage by sending them to a private school and I can understand why some might think this unfair or not create an equal society. Personally, the answer to that is tough. I am willing to spend the money to give them their best chance in life.
But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
From a betting perspective, I hope you're right about Le Pen having no chance against Macron/Fillon. The combination that worries me is Fillon/Melenchon.
No 2 daughter sent to work, No. 1 daughter is now on the train. Time for coffee, some PBing and then prepping for tomorrow's visitors
https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852421820351381504
The weak performance of UK industry in so many areas over a long time period, though, surely indicates that there is some truth in the argument that those doing the hiring tend to hire "people like them". That may be because they do not know how to identify real talent because they are themselves mediocre.
The whole 'the locals aren't willing to do the work' issue is really a London problem and a problem London has brought upon itself with its housing policies.
A lot of FN support comes from regions where the Communists had strong support. I can see LePen shedding some core support to him.
Neither would be even close to having a majority in the assembly. Gridlock would be a certainty.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/government-failing-to-assert-irish-interests-in-eu-negotiations-on-brexit/#
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
But we digress...
"Jeremy Corbyn’s party saw their support slide by 8.2 per cent in the ward in the Brexit-backing city of Middlesborough."
First of all, it is Middlesbrough.
Secondly, it is a town, not a city.
Thirdly, as party is singular, shouldn't it be 'saw its' rather than 'saw their'?
Fourthly, the Labour vote fell by 8.2 percentage points rather than by 8.2%.
Otherwise, spot on reporting.
Although there would still be differences in their home background so perhaps we should have randomly selected parents as well.
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades
2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication
3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go.
4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
I also believe that the statistics suffer from a fundamental flaw that they don't go on to measure life outcomes of those who go through the grammar system vs those who don't. Educational achievement is just one of the ways in which grammar schools are important, it's also giving kids from ordinary backgrounds high expectations for the rest of their lives. At my school the teachers expected nothing less than the best, it has given me a similar outlook in life and the same is true for most of my school friends, despite a lot of us coming from modest backgrounds we've all done very well in later life because no one is willing to settle for "good enough" which seems to pervade the rest of the state sector.
I also think the education sector is too one dimensional, it's educational achievement or nothing. Technical education in this country is shockingly poor. We need to improve other aspects of our education system before looking at how to improve selection for grammar schools. It is one of those "nice to haves" in a perfect system like Switzerland, not something we should be prioritising in our broken system.
Anyway, off to brunch.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/852833829802856451
Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars.
The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in Kent, but I think that individual grammars are perfectly defensible as part of a pluralist system.
The other point about existing statistics so frequently quoted is that they do not differentiate between the old style Kent system (where there is a kind of educational apartheid of the kind which created the resentment that destroyed the post war consensus), and the majority of England where there are relatively few surviving grammars.
It's either that or sterilise all of the Chavs.
“Compared to all his critics, Jeremy Corbyn is worth about 18-20 percentage points to Labour’s vote. Without him, and led by any one of his vocal critics we could easily be languishing in single digits in polls.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-diane-abbott_uk_58efc7c3e4b0b9e9848a5e66?utm_hp_ref=uk
I also expect that Ireland's US friendly tax regimes will rapidly come under fire.
This is worth a read.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/brexit-50-things-ireland-needs-to-know-1.3030493
I think they will stay, but the EU will become less popular
they will be net contributors from now on
the financial crisis and the way they were treated damaged Europe
they depend too much on tax rates, which can change at any time
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-blamed-as-middlesbrough-by-election-sees-tories-take-labour-seat_uk_58f090bee4b0bb9638e2fbc1?4q
I totally accept what @rcs1000 and others on here say about us not really needing to worry about the top 20% as they take care of themselves, but it really grates when those who are able to extract their own kids from the state system are prepared to give an opinion on what the state system should be.
Con gain from Lab - Middlesborough
Con gain from UKIP - Tendring
Con hold - Calderdale
Lib Dem hold - Bath
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-challenges-the-identity-of-ulster-unionism-1.3047791?mode=amp
(At least 3x Eton's fees.)
And the outcomes are pretty dreadful.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39599859
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
First, happy Easter to all on PB.
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
25-54: 38% (40%)
55-64: 12.5% (11.8%)
65+: 19.1% (18%)
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
' However, senior allies of Corbyn fear there could be a renewed effort by Labour rebels to challenge him for the leadership if the party’s local election results are very poor, with some estimates suggesting dozens of council seats could be lost. '
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/13/most-of-labours-support-is-down-to-corbyn-diane-abbott-says
Labour's already lost the expectations management game.
Saw a tweet yesterday (I try not to do politics much on Twitter and resisted the urge to reply) attacking those who spread fear about Sharia Law.
....
Rightyho.
*sighs*
Greece with guns - sounds a winner.
If you want the end of freedom of movement then you should vote to leave the EU.
I expect us to have a free trade arrangement, to be out of the customs union (which will create some paperwork for exports with imported components), to have special transitional arrangements allowing easy access of EU citizens to the UK, possibly with some minimum earning requirement, to have an acceptable equivalence to UK and EU financial regulation, to continue working with the EU on security, aviation, IP rights and possibly a few other things (which will include continuing to pay our share of the cost of such things) and generally for this to seem a bit of a damp squib in the short to medium term. I don't see diamond hard Brexits as the alternative, not at all.
Serious question, Yes many are still suffering but for the vast majority of people why do we need a labour govt? Wee have universal healthcare, universal education, JSa for when you can't work unions if you want to join, housing benefits for the poorest, council housing can even be passed on children. One the last thing we need a centre left govt to solve is end of life care but for MOST people we no longer NEED a labour government, they have done what we needed them to do.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-féin-our-plan-to-persuade-unionists-to-support-a-united-ireland-1.3036229?mode=amp