They are not "shocking". They are average. That is not good enough, but it is not a disaster. Improvement is obviously necessary, but before we can improve we have to be honest about where we are; and that is with most of the rest of Europe and the developed world outside of East Asia. What the PISA tests measure is the ability to do PISA tests. If we started teaching kids to do them - which is what they do in many other countries - we would probably get better results, but what would that tell us?
In school testing is not the same as outsourced examinations. I trust it because there is no reason for it to be anything less than transparent. I also trust it because you can compare like for like - assessment criteria has not changed. When that happens and results improve I see that as good news.
Oh Lordy, are you really this stupid? 13 years of "education, education, education", and massive amounts of wasted money, and if anything we're going down. We are failing our children.
Reasons why in-school assessments might not be telling the truth: 1) It is in teacher's interests to get good results. 2) Teachers get increasingly skilled at teaching for the examination, which is different to teaching for knowledge and skills. 3) It is politicians' short-term interests to get good results.
What you cannot face is that Labour failed. Hopelessly, utterly failed. We discussed this about eighteen months ago, and you said that improved results would start coming through. I said I hoped you were right.
The illiteracy and innumeracy levels are a disaster, and that's just at the bottom end.
Well, you're utterly wrong and hopelessly complacent.
A quick look at the teaching unions' reaction to the PISA results tells you everything you need to know about the left's view of education primarily as a weapon in the class war.
It's notable that in Northern Ireland, where there is still a strong grammar school system, the results are worse than for England and Scotland, where there is not.
Obviously, much will be made about the overall results. And Gove is absolutely right to demand better. But why on earth look to a system that is failing catastrophically to produce results? Finland seems to be a much better model for us to follow, given that the learning by rote systems used in Asia are not actually producing great onward results in terns of innovation and entrepreneurialism.
What a retarded statement. Hong Kong and Singapore are two of the richest city-states on the planet. They also do exceptionally well in other indicators, besides education - they have low crime, good health, etc
Who gives a tinker's wank if they don't do well at "innovation"? And who are you to decide what constitutes innovation, anyway? And what's this bollocks about East Asians being no good at entrepreneurialism? Have you not noticed the rise of enormous, globally successful companies in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and now China?
If entrepreneurs didn't do that, who did? Civil servants? Elephants? The tea lady?
Yes, I'd say the state played a pivotal role in developing the big conglomerates in all the countries you mention. We will have to disagree about the importance of innovation in sustaining long term growth.
"Asia has no entrepreneurs". You read it here first. Southam has told us.
Oh, wait:
"China’s remarkable economic growth has been achieved through the rapid emergence of a dynamic private sector. Linda Yueh explores what we know about the generation of self-employed entrepreneurs who have driven this transformation....
"Since the late 1990s, China’s entrepreneurs have been the key driver of growth. They are the creators of the de novo firms that are forming a dynamic and innovative private sector – an essential force in any developing country (see, for example, Wu, 2002, and Zhang)"
Were you, by chance, educated in a Welsh comprehensive, Southam?
There's not much point in debating with someone who makes quotes up. We could have a long discussion about entrepreneurialism in China, the way it has developed and its long-term limitations, but I suspect you are not very interested in that. You are simply in a wind-up the lefties frame of mind. So maybe we can return to this another day.
"There's not much point in debating with someone who makes quotes up."
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
Ha! Are all Latin teachers like this? Mine was called Mrs Sockett - really you couldn't make it up. She was like the prow of a ship combined with Peggy Mount and if you had a cold, you weren't allowed to put a tissue in her paper basket.
We had daily Latin tests for the first 10 mins - where she'd chalk up various things we were supposed to know, and then were compelled to pass our answers at random to another victim for marking.
We never ever went into her class not knowing our stuff - I'd not want her to be my mother [her daughter was a couple of years above me] but golly was she effective.
When I was at primary school in Scotland, we used to get a little spelling and arithmetic test each morning plus a bigger exam at the end of each year.
Has that stopped now? There were no SATS then.
My son's class (L6) does quota every day where you get tested on spelling. Each time you get 100% you get an extra word added to your quota for the following test. It is incredibly competitive and frankly a big step up on when I was at school when spelling seemed to be thought a matter of taste.
What an interesting notion. When I was a school, our Latin teacher who was a complete battleaxe set us a test to learn 2000 words/verbs and their declensions/genders. That was basically what she'd taught us the previous year and she wanted to make sure it was bedded in.
By golly did we knuckle down and learn them from our own notes. If your notes were crap - you had to fess up and get her own. Fortunately for me - I was a keen blackboard copier and had an enormous day book with them all in. I've never learned more details more thoroughly than that exercise.
Are you sure our Latin teachers were not related? We had daily Latin vocab tests. First one wrong: stand up; second one wrong: stand on your chair; third one wrong: bend over for a whack with a PE shoe. Fortunately as I found the order of Latin quite mathematical and was good at Maths, then I escaped the PE shoe.
BTW if you need a USB mouse, I can post you one from our IT spares.
Should we not be looking at parental influence as well?
Some kid gets sent home from school for dying their hair purple against the school dress code and the parent runs to the Daily Mail decrying the injustice of it.
Parents (and grandparents) are crucial.
My parents and grandparents were determined that I had the best education.
They gave me tests on the things I had learned at school. I had to learn new words every day, and use them in context.
My father wouldn't get Sky for many years, because he didn't want it distracting me from my studies.
I acknowledge that some parents for a variety of reasons, out of their control, don't have the opportunity to spend time on their children's education.
Just remember any issue with Education are nothing to do with the previous Labour Government and definitely nothing to do with our glorious hardworking teachers. Its all the tories fault. Never forget that!
They are not "shocking". They are average. That is not good enough, but it is not a disaster. Improvement is obviously necessary, but before we can improve we have to be honest about where we are; and that is with most of the rest of Europe and the developed world outside of East Asia. What the PISA tests measure is the ability to do PISA tests. If we started teaching kids to do them - which is what they do in many other countries - we would probably get better results, but what would that tell us?
In school testing is not the same as outsourced examinations. I trust it because there is no reason for it to be anything less than transparent. I also trust it because you can compare like for like - assessment criteria has not changed. When that happens and results improve I see that as good news.
Oh Lordy, are you really this stupid? 13 years of "education, education, education", and massive amounts of wasted money, and if anything we're going down. We are failing our children.
Reasons why in-school assessments might not be telling the truth: 1) It is in teacher's interests to get good results. 2) Teachers get increasingly skilled at teaching for the examination, which is different to teaching for knowledge and skills. 3) It is politicians' short-term interests to get good results.
What you cannot face is that Labour failed. Hopelessly, utterly failed. We discussed this about eighteen months ago, and you said that improved results would start coming through. I said I hoped you were right.
The illiteracy and innumeracy levels are a disaster, and that's just at the bottom end.
Well, you're utterly wrong and hopelessly complacent.
We did not have that conversation. You are making that up.
Clearly you do not know how school assessments are undertaken? Do you seriously believe they are not looked at by outside sources. This is a major part of what OFSTED inspectors do.
Do you believe, then, that teachers deliberately underplayed literacy and numeracy results in 1996 and then started to manipulate them from 1997 onwards?
Should we not be looking at parental influence as well?
Some kid gets sent home from school for dying their hair purple against the school dress code and the parent runs to the Daily Mail decrying the injustice of it.
Parents (and grandparents) are crucial.
My parents and grandparents were determined that I had the best education.
They gave me tests on the things I had learned at school. I had to learn new words every day, and use them in context.
My father wouldn't get Sky for many years, because he didn't want it distracting me from my studies.
I acknowledge that some parents for a variety of reasons, out of their control, don't have the opportunity to spend time on their children's education.
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
Stop looking for crumbs of comfort in the results. Let private schools continue what they are doing, and concentrate on Labour's utter, abject failures.
You really are complacent. You should be saying: "We should be working to make our kids the brightest in the world." Instead your attitude is "We're mid-table. Let's navel gaze for a while."
Just remember any issue with Education are nothing to do with the previous Labour Government and definitely nothing to do with our glorious hardworking teachers. Its all the tories fault. Never forget that!
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
I'd explain it like PISA do, that socio-economic effects have a big impact on results. So if you're shelling out £10k a year, it sort defines the socio-economics.
Rather makes the case for restored social mobility.
Whilst we're all looking back at our own schooling, remembering the good (Or the bad) old days none (I think) of us are in school now.
Programming should probably be part of the school curriculum these days. Gove said it would be the new latin, but I have no idea if it is taught properly in schools.
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
Stop looking for crumbs of comfort in the results. Let private schools continue what they are doing, and concentrate on Labour's utter, abject failures.
You really are complacent. You should be saying: "We should be working to make our kids the brightest in the world." Instead your attitude is "We're mid-table. Let's navel gaze for a while."
Labour's attitude written large.
Nope - you are just making things up again. What I said was that the results were not "shocking". What I have also said is that we clearly need to improve. But we cannot improve unless we accept where we are, which is not at the bottom but in the middle with most of our competitors.
As for the private sector; as it is failing to produce any value-added for those that make use of it, perhaps we can all agree that there is little that it can teach the public sector, which actually performs better than it does once socio economic factors are included.
When I was at primary school in Scotland, we used to get a little spelling and arithmetic test each morning plus a bigger exam at the end of each year.
Has that stopped now? There were no SATS then.
My son's class (L6) does quota every day where you get tested on spelling. Each time you get 100% you get an extra word added to your quota for the following test. It is incredibly competitive and frankly a big step up on when I was at school when spelling seemed to be thought a matter of taste.
What an interesting notion. When I was a school, our Latin teacher who was a complete battleaxe set us a test to learn 2000 words/verbs and their declensions/genders. That was basically what she'd taught us the previous year and she wanted to make sure it was bedded in.
By golly did we knuckle down and learn them from our own notes. If your notes were crap - you had to fess up and get her own. Fortunately for me - I was a keen blackboard copier and had an enormous day book with them all in. I've never learned more details more thoroughly than that exercise.
I think there is a lot to be said for rote teaching. It encourages memory, concentration and discipline. Clearly it cannot be enough on it's own but it is an important part of the school curriculum and it has been under used.
The PISA scores measure competence but creativitity is not an alternative. You cannot be usefully creative in maths, for example, until you are competent. Holistic approaches and the need to inspire creativity has been used as an excuse for poor results by the education profession for far too long.
When I did Latin at school I spent the best part of a year learning a book of the Aeneid off by heart in Latin and English. I had a serious panic shortly before the exam when I discovered that I was not very good at tying the two together and was at risk of "translating" the wrong bit!
I remember the day we were set the Odyssey when we'd learnt the Aeneid.
A great way to expose those who didn't translate at all - buggers. I still recall one translation test where IIRC I was lost and saw a word that I think meant tenement building or fire-engine. And I got it wrong.
The private schools do do better. But not if you take socio-economic background into account. So, yes, better off kids or kids whose parents read to them or kids whose parents make them do homework or kids who actually give a shit do well - but apart from that they're the same. What a load of bollocks. Results are results and excuses or dismissals don't help anyone.
One other thing about most private schools or the best, competitive, hard driving state schools is that pupils generally emerge able to communicate, with some confidence, and a good level of social and employable skills. PISA can't test that - but employers and university admissions tutors can.
Our state education sector is crippled with a lefty PC 'prizes for all' attitude, bequeated to it and reinforced for 13 years of abject failure. The system needs an Alt/Ctrl/Delete.
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
You're probably going to be the best person to teach her English. Whilst teachers may be qualified to teach English, you've managed to make a (very good) living out of words
They are not "shocking". They are average. That is not good enough, but it is not a disaster. Improvement is obviously necessary, but before we can improve we have to be honest about where we are; and that is with most of the rest of Europe and the developed world outside of East Asia. What the PISA tests measure is the ability to do PISA tests. If we started teaching kids to do them - which is what they do in many other countries - we would probably get better results, but what would that tell us?
In school testing is not the same as outsourced examinations. I trust it because there is no reason for it to be anything less than transparent. I also trust it because you can compare like for like - assessment criteria has not changed. When that happens and results improve I see that as good news.
Oh Lordy, are you really this stupid? 13 years of "education, education, education", and massive amounts of wasted money, and if anything we're going down. We are failing our children.
Reasons why in-school assessments might not be telling the truth: 1) It is in teacher's interests to get good results. 2) Teachers get increasingly skilled at teaching for the examination, which is different to teaching for knowledge and skills. 3) It is politicians' short-term interests to get good results.
What you cannot face is that Labour failed. Hopelessly, utterly failed. We discussed this about eighteen months ago, and you said that improved results would start coming through. I said I hoped you were right.
The illiteracy and innumeracy levels are a disaster, and that's just at the bottom end.
Well, you're utterly wrong and hopelessly complacent.
We did not have that conversation. You are making that up.
Clearly you do not know how school assessments are undertaken? Do you seriously believe they are not looked at by outside sources. This is a major part of what OFSTED inspectors do.
Do you believe, then, that teachers deliberately underplayed literacy and numeracy results in 1996 and then started to manipulate them from 1997 onwards?
I'm not making anything up. We did have that conversation, back in June or July last year. ISTR we ended it by my saying: "I hope you're right (i.e. educational standards will improve as Labour's reforms make their way through) and I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right."
It looks as though I was right.
And whilst I am not a teacher, I have talked to teachers about the assessment process, which they tend to dislike.
And don't make up rubbish. I've criticised the last Conservative government for the illiteracy and innumeracy levels as well - it's hard to get a handle on. But Labour threw money at smoke and mirrors.
The Rabbits are out and running... didn't take long... lots to divert from The Education figures, the construction figures and Ed's humiliating climbdown..that last one is going to be fun..
When I was at primary school in Scotland, we used to get a little spelling and arithmetic test each morning plus a bigger exam at the end of each year.
Has that stopped now? There were no SATS then.
My son's class (L6) does quota every day where you get tested on spelling. Each time you get 100% you get an extra word added to your quota for the following test. It is incredibly competitive and frankly a big step up on when I was at school when spelling seemed to be thought a matter of taste.
What an interesting notion. When I was a school, our Latin teacher who was a complete battleaxe set us a test to learn 2000 words/verbs and their declensions/genders. That was basically what she'd taught us the previous year and she wanted to make sure it was bedded in.
By golly did we knuckle down and learn them from our own notes. If your notes were crap - you had to fess up and get her own. Fortunately for me - I was a keen blackboard copier and had an enormous day book with them all in. I've never learned more details more thoroughly than that exercise.
I think there is a lot to be said for rote teaching. It encourages memory, concentration and discipline. Clearly it cannot be enough on it's own but it is an important part of the school curriculum and it has been under used.
The PISA scores measure competence but creativitity is not an alternative. You cannot be usefully creative in maths, for example, until you are competent. Holistic approaches and the need to inspire creativity has been used as an excuse for poor results by the education profession for far too long.
When I did Latin at school I spent the best part of a year learning a book of the Aeneid off by heart in Latin and English. I had a serious panic shortly before the exam when I discovered that I was not very good at tying the two together and was at risk of "translating" the wrong bit!
I've a lot of time for rote learning - without having the basics, you can't interpret anything bar having a hunch.
All the things I learned at school that stuck were learned by rote. Times tables, vocabulary, formula, dates blah blah - without that bedrock of knowledge how could I put everything else into context?
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
Complain. Poor teaching is a curse and needs ot be weeded out, of that there is no doubt. The teacher got near the school because he/she was given a job by the management of the school.
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
Stop looking for crumbs of comfort in the results. Let private schools continue what they are doing, and concentrate on Labour's utter, abject failures.
You really are complacent. You should be saying: "We should be working to make our kids the brightest in the world." Instead your attitude is "We're mid-table. Let's navel gaze for a while."
Labour's attitude written large.
Nope - you are just making things up again. What I said was that the results were not "shocking". What I have also said is that we clearly need to improve. But we cannot improve unless we accept where we are, which is not at the bottom but in the middle with most of our competitors.
As for the private sector; as it is failing to produce any value-added for those that make use of it, perhaps we can all agree that there is little that it can teach the public sector, which actually performs better than it does once socio economic factors are included.
well you sort of are complacent, since we're in the middle and heading down as we have been since 2000. And while some of the drop is simply that more countries have joined the melee ( so we wouldn't have been 4th in 2000 in any case ), the UK is still heading in the wrong direction. We no longer rank in the top 20 on any subject, and while the rate of decline might be slowing it's still a decline. Really it's time for a re-think on what we're doing and to recognise that post 97 education policies have not delivered, despite the rhetoric.
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
Stop looking for crumbs of comfort in the results. Let private schools continue what they are doing, and concentrate on Labour's utter, abject failures.
You really are complacent. You should be saying: "We should be working to make our kids the brightest in the world." Instead your attitude is "We're mid-table. Let's navel gaze for a while."
Labour's attitude written large.
Nope - you are just making things up again. What I said was that the results were not "shocking". What I have also said is that we clearly need to improve. But we cannot improve unless we accept where we are, which is not at the bottom but in the middle with most of our competitors.
As for the private sector; as it is failing to produce any value-added for those that make use of it, perhaps we can all agree that there is little that it can teach the public sector, which actually performs better than it does once socio economic factors are included.
But you make things up in arguments and refuse to retract them yourself? How can you be so hypocritical?
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
Lazy fu8kwits as well who can't wait for 3.15 to come around and they go on unchallenged year in, year out. My one issue with Gove is that nothing seems to have changed in fact they seem to manipulate even more time off than when Labour was in charge. Difficult to promote a work ethic amongst children as a parent, when such idle tw*ts are in charge of them at school. It really is a national disgrace and in secondary schools it is a majority of inadequate or bone idle teachers not a minority.
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
They did not find that. They found that private schools are hugely better. They then make a massive adjustment for what they think might be one of the reasons. That adjustment is a guess.
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
Get a private tutor, and offer your daughter incentives for improvement.
They are not "shocking". They are average. That is not good enough, but it is not a disaster. Improvement is obviously necessary, but before we can improve we have to be honest about where we are; and that is with most of the rest of Europe and the developed world outside of East Asia. What the PISA tests measure is the ability to do PISA tests. If we started teaching kids to do them - which is what they do in many other countries - we would probably get better results, but what would that tell us?
In school testing is not the same as outsourced examinations. I trust it because there is no reason for it to be anything less than transparent. I also trust it because you can compare like for like - assessment criteria has not changed. When that happens and results improve I see that as good news.
Oh Lordy, are you really this stupid? 13 years of "education, education, education", and massive amounts of wasted money, and if anything we're going down. We are failing our children.
Reasons why in-school assessments might not be telling the truth: 1) It is in teacher's interests to get good results. 2) Teachers get increasingly skilled at teaching for the examination, which is different to teaching for knowledge and skills. 3) It is politicians' short-term interests to get good results.
What you cannot face is that Labour failed. Hopelessly, utterly failed. We discussed this about eighteen months ago, and you said that improved results would start coming through. I said I hoped you were right.
The illiteracy and innumeracy levels are a disaster, and that's just at the bottom end.
Well, you're utterly wrong and hopelessly complacent.
We did not have that conversation. You are making that up.
Clearly you do not know how school assessments are undertaken? Do you seriously believe they are not looked at by outside sources. This is a major part of what OFSTED inspectors do.
Do you believe, then, that teachers deliberately underplayed literacy and numeracy results in 1996 and then started to manipulate them from 1997 onwards?
I'm not making anything up. We did have that conversation, back in June or July last year. ISTR we ended it by my saying: "I hope you're right (i.e. educational standards will improve as Labour's reforms make their way through) and I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right."
It looks as though I was right.
And whilst I am not a teacher, I have talked to teachers about the assessment process, which they tend to dislike.
And don't make up rubbish. I've criticised the last Conservative government for the illiteracy and innumeracy levels as well - it's hard to get a handle on. But Labour threw money at smoke and mirrors.
I am afraid we did not have that conversation. I have never defended Labour's education policies. As I have said on here any number of times I think they were deeply flawed. Yes, teachers hate the assessment process, but it is there and it is independent of the school. My wife, who is leaving teaching in January, spent long hours having to justify the results for her classes in both numeracy and literacy to outside inspectors.
Whilst we're all looking back at our own schooling, remembering the good (Or the bad) old days none (I think) of us are in school now.
Programming should probably be part of the school curriculum these days. Gove said it would be the new latin, but I have no idea if it is taught properly in schools.
ICT is a mainstream subject in School now but what I think is even more important is that the tools that will be used in the workplace are built into pretty much every subject.
As I mentioned downthread my son's school will have an ipad for every kid in the new year. My daughter, who is doing higher business, has to do presentations using powerpoint (I know) and excel. Much of the music classes in the older years involve technology that did not exist when I was at school. Languages use internet to read material in other countries and to hear the different accents.
This is a major challenge to our teaching profession who will constantly find that they are teaching kids more familiar with the technology than they are.
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
Stop looking for crumbs of comfort in the results. Let private schools continue what they are doing, and concentrate on Labour's utter, abject failures.
You really are complacent. You should be saying: "We should be working to make our kids the brightest in the world." Instead your attitude is "We're mid-table. Let's navel gaze for a while."
Labour's attitude written large.
Nope - you are just making things up again. What I said was that the results were not "shocking". What I have also said is that we clearly need to improve. But we cannot improve unless we accept where we are, which is not at the bottom but in the middle with most of our competitors.
As for the private sector; as it is failing to produce any value-added for those that make use of it, perhaps we can all agree that there is little that it can teach the public sector, which actually performs better than it does once socio economic factors are included.
Stop accusing me of making things up before you make even more of an idiot of yourself.
At least you've moved from the Flowers affair, such a game changer in the polls that one.
Age catching you up tim. I've hardly said anything on Flowers, I was off line most of the time the fun broke and didn't think it would hurt that much. The change of Co-op ownership however I do see as more significant and have said so.
Why has Gove chosen to follow the Free School model that has led to catastrophic falls for Sweden down the tables?
You could, of course, for once, break your life long vow of terminal idiocy and admit that Yes, Labour f*cked up on Education.
The totally depressing thing here is that Education was meant to be Labour's Great Triumph. Education, Education, Education. Your party poured money and resources into this, and the result is: we have plummetted from 4th to 25th in global rankings.
That's the outcome. There is no denying it, any more. Labour totally f*cked up on schools.
You could be a better man than normal and admit this, and try and analyse where we might improve.
Instead, you make a partisan attack on Gove. Of course. To hell with the kids who are suffering a mediocre education system.
It's attitudes like yours that are a significant part of the problem. Bleak, pointless, partisan sniping.
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
Sounds like you have an NQT in her first year (slightly unfortunate, but everyone has to start somewhere). But importantly, it sounds like she isn't being given sufficient support / mentoring / advice / competence tests. I would voice your complaints loudly to both the Head and the Chair of Governors - with clear evidence where possible (ie this is incorrect, rather than 'my child doesn't like her') - the latter may not be aware that it is an issue, and the former may assume that its just teething issues and doesn't need support.
They are not "shocking". They are average. That is not good enough, but it is not a disaster. Improvement is obviously necessary, but before we can improve we have to be honest about where we are; and that is with most of the rest of Europe and the developed world outside of East Asia. What the PISA tests measure is the ability to do PISA tests. If we started teaching kids to do them - which is what they do in many other countries - we would probably get better results, but what would that tell us?
In school testing is not the same as outsourced examinations. I trust it because there is no reason for it to be anything less than transparent. I also trust it because you can compare like for like - assessment criteria has not changed. When that happens and results improve I see that as good news.
Oh Lordy, are you really this stupid? 13 years of "education, education, education", and massive amounts of wasted money, and if anything we're going down. We are failing our children.
Reasons why in-school assessments might not be telling the truth: 1) It is in teacher's interests to get good results. 2) Teachers get increasingly skilled at teaching for the examination, which is different to teaching for knowledge and skills. 3) It is politicians' short-term interests to get good results.
What you cannot face is that Labour failed. Hopelessly, utterly failed. We discussed this about eighteen months ago, and you said that improved results would start coming through. I said I hoped you were right.
The illiteracy and innumeracy levels are a disaster, and that's just at the bottom end.
Well, you're utterly wrong and hopelessly complacent.
We did not have that conversation. You are making that up.
Clearly you do not know how school assessments are undertaken? Do you seriously believe they are not looked at by outside sources. This is a major part of what OFSTED inspectors do.
Do you believe, then, that teachers deliberately underplayed literacy and numeracy results in 1996 and then started to manipulate them from 1997 onwards?
I'm not making anything up. We did have that conversation, back in June or July last year. ISTR we ended it by my saying: "I hope you're right (i.e. educational standards will improve as Labour's reforms make their way through) and I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right."
It looks as though I was right.
And whilst I am not a teacher, I have talked to teachers about the assessment process, which they tend to dislike.
And don't make up rubbish. I've criticised the last Conservative government for the illiteracy and innumeracy levels as well - it's hard to get a handle on. But Labour threw money at smoke and mirrors.
I am afraid we did not have that conversation. I have never defended Labour's education policies. As I have said on here any number of times I think they were deeply flawed. Yes, teachers hate the assessment process, but it is there and it is independent of the school. My wife, who is leaving teaching in January, spent long hours having to justify the results for her classes in both numeracy and literacy to outside inspectors.
A quote of yours from July last year:
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Whilst we're all looking back at our own schooling, remembering the good (Or the bad) old days none (I think) of us are in school now.
Programming should probably be part of the school curriculum these days. Gove said it would be the new latin, but I have no idea if it is taught properly in schools.
This I've never grasped - its like demanding welding is taught. Programming is a specialist skill as is every other trade or profession.
Why does a kid need to learn how to program? They can't replace a plug nevermind write code to do whatever.
It strikes me as very odd. And I come from a family where Dad wrote in 0100101010101111 on pajama paper.
Just remember any issue with Education are nothing to do with the previous Labour Government and definitely nothing to do with our glorious hardworking teachers. Its all the tories fault. Never forget that!
Teachers teach what they are told to teach.
Schools and teachers have had fortunes thrown at them over the past 12 years and yet education standards here are tumbling in comparison with our competitors. Whose fault is that?
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
Get a private tutor, and offer your daughter incentives for improvement.
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
They did not find that. They found that private schools are hugely better. They then make a massive adjustment for what they think might be one of the reasons. That adjustment is a guess.
That most of the sporting, political and media elite are from non-comprehensive educations - I think we can draw a few unflattering conclusions here.
I read an interesting article recently about why state schools in most developed countries are so crap. Basically the argument was that in the developing world teachers are seen as something to admire or aspire to. They get good respect and a salary to motivate (all things being relative). But in the developed world there are so many more attractive opportunities for people with talent that teaching does not attract the brightest or most motivated or most motivating people. Education in the rich world is a victim of our relative success!
I think this makes sense. One area of education that is utterly commercial is the market for professional qualification training. It takes two or three years to qualify as an accountant for example. People can't afford to waste their time and money on this. So results count and the only objective measure is what you really know that's useful in the end and can demonstrate this to an examiner or employer. The best companies in this space (such as BPP) could teach alot to the teaching profession and universities about the actual practice of teaching effectively. No wonder the universities are so vehemently opposed to commercial organisations such as this being allowed to award degrees - they'd get blown away by more more capable competition. Economics desgree from Oxford or from BPP? As an employer I'd prefer the BPP degree!
Just remember any issue with Education are nothing to do with the previous Labour Government and definitely nothing to do with our glorious hardworking teachers. Its all the tories fault. Never forget that!
Teachers teach what they are told to teach.
Schools and teachers have had fortunes thrown at them over the past 12 years and yet education standards here are tumbling in comparison with our competitors. Whose fault is that?
Education standards are not tumbling. But they have not risen either. And I'd blame government for that - and private exam boards.
Strikes, work to rule, 6 week holidays in summer, 13 weeks off all year, 6 hr days including lunch and breaks, numerous "inset" days, whining, moaning, complaining.
Our teachers are too busy to teach with all of the above going on.
We get average results, yet we spend more per child than almost any other country. That's Labour's fault. That's Labour's failure. They spent billions and billions, and achieved: nothing.
Hardly surprising really. Einstein, Rutherford, Newton, all of the greats got their education with nothing more than a blackboard and some chalk. It's the tuition and the attitude that count - not the facilities. Shiny new schools staffed by fu
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
They did not find that. They found that private schools are hugely better. They then make a massive adjustment for what they think might be one of the reasons. That adjustment is a guess.
It is an extrapolation, just as the results of the very small number of kids who took the PISA tests in the UK have been extrapolated. Either you accept PISA is a legitimate source of information or you do not.
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
Complain. Poor teaching is a curse and needs ot be weeded out, of that there is no doubt. The teacher got near the school because he/she was given a job by the management of the school.
Indeed. I never complain about small things that go wrong at school (it is a grave error to mark yourself out as "The Complainer"), but if there is a serious problem like a useless teacher it is the parents' responsibility to make management aware of the problem. They need to have clear incoming information in order to take action.
Out of curiosity, how many PBers were privately educated?
I was, it was no Millfield, but it was and is the best school in Yorkshire.
Private Day School (ex Grammer) until GCSE's - then a local 6th Form College for A-Levels (then Cambridge).
Currently Governor of one state primary school, whilst wanting my 3 year old to go to a different one which is much better (Ofsted Outstanding instead of Requires Improvement). (I am working on improving the first, but it is a long and slow process...)
My colleague informs me that she sees Susanna as the most likely winner. She doesn't bet, but is a keen viewer and is a good source of info on this. She thinks that Patrick could pip Sophie.
She doesn't think Nathalie will carry the public vote though she is a top dancer.
Teachers seem to get a lot more crap thrown at them compared to when I was at school. Too many administrators, co-ordinators and God knows what else trying to justify their jobs.
Strikes, work to rule, 6 week holidays in summer, 13 weeks off all year, 6 hr days including lunch and breaks, numerous "inset" days, whining, moaning, complaining.
Our teachers are too busy to teach with all of the above going on.
Totally agree here. My teachers were mostly middle-aged and old girls who you'd never attempt to take on. They knew their subjects inside out and even if they didn't - we'd still believe them.
When we encountered a supply teacher who didn't match their robustness, they were annihilated by pupils who asked searching questions that exposed their intellectual weak-points.
At primary school - I was told I was lying when I said I'd read the set book - it was about pirates. It took about 20mins to finish it. I arrived at school with a very large vocabulary and able to read well - and was called a liar by my own teacher in front of everyone else. This put me off for years ever saying that I was bored blah blah.
I'm surely not the only bright kid with keen parents who's experienced this attitude.
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
My colleague informs me that she sees Susanna as the most likely winner. She doesn't bet, but is a keen viewer and is a good source of info on this. She thinks that Patrick could pip Sophie.
She doesn't think Nathalie will carry the public vote though she is a top dancer.
Without wanting to set off the SPAM trap.
MILFs like Susanna Reid haven't done well/won in the recent years.
Educated at an excellent Grammar School which was full of inspirational teachers and had an ex-Harrovian master as Head and so it was run on public school lines. Prefects were in charge of school discipline (under the eye of the deputy head) and so receved excellent experience in 'man-management'.
"Britain's poor showing overall comes despite the fact that it spends more than the international average on a child’s primary and secondary education.
Some $98,023 (£59,921) was invested by the UK on each child – bettered only by seven nations. It is around twice as much spent in Shanghai, meaning that China’s performance would be even better if it invested the same sums seen in the UK."
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
I think it is worth reflecting upon why Labour failed.
It is clearly not because they wanted to. It is not because they did not want the best for our children. It was not a lack of resources. So what went wrong?
If we cannot work that out we cannot really make progress. Some tentative thoughts would be:
(1) Our teacher training establishments are overloaded with very left wing sociologists who are more interested in social inequality than the mechanics of learning to teach. My sister, who is a primary school teacher, was driven mental at the nonsense they had to regurgitate in exams to be allowed to pass. That was some years ago but my wife is currently undergoing (very belatedly) teacher training at college and it is the same nonsense.
(2) The left orientation of teacher training encourages "solidarity" and rather disapproves of exceptionlism or even aspiration. Anything that marks a % of kids as having failed is thought to be bad. But curiously I would quote a sociologist in reply. Durkheim said that "without evil there is no good, without crime there is no justice." Without failure there is no success.
(3) There is a generational shift here that is genuinely difficult to get a handle on. As a child I read voraciously. My kids don't. There are too many distractions with endless TV, the internet, games consoles, mobile phones, social media etc. Not all of these are bad by any means but I really wonder if education is designed to cope with the products of the modern world.
''Teachers seem to get a lot more crap thrown at them compared to when I was at school. Too many administrators, co-ordinators and God knows what else trying to justify their jobs. ''
Plus inspections, aggressive, boorish, ignorant parents and scurrilous accusations from hostile pupils. 'He touched me sir!'
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
Out of curiosity, how many PBers were privately educated?
I was, it was no Millfield, but it was and is the best school in Yorkshire.
I was. I went to Dame Allan's in Newcastle - I also had a place at Central High which was academically a bit superior but the pupils seemed unhappy when I did my entrance exam back then. They also had a *brown and yellow* uniform.
Brown and yellow? Like a banana toffee split? Really?
Just remember any issue with Education are nothing to do with the previous Labour Government and definitely nothing to do with our glorious hardworking teachers. Its all the tories fault. Never forget that!
Teachers teach what they are told to teach.
Schools and teachers have had fortunes thrown at them over the past 12 years and yet education standards here are tumbling in comparison with our competitors. Whose fault is that?
Education standards are not tumbling. But they have not risen either. And I'd blame government for that - and private exam boards.
I sometimes wonder if it is helpful for education to have become such a political football, with both parties accusing the other of failing children and announcing endless "initiatives" most of which are forgotten almost as soon as the media launch is over. If more effort was put into finding a national consensus and less into the blame game it might be easier to make progress.
The UK has some of the world's best universities - the government does not interfere in their organistion or curricula on a daily basis, or ever in most cases, so is endless government interference in schools really beneficial?
Finding out Wales is falling further behind the rest of the UK in education is very unsurprising. PISA merely confirms GCSE and A Level results, before 2000 Wales outperformed England in both, in the last 13 years Wales has dropped steadily behind.
I actually have a personal interest in this. My 7 year old daughter in London was doing fine - indeed very well - at her state primary (which is a good school). She was pretty good at maths and far ahead at English.
But this academic year she has a useless teacher, aged apparently about 21, who has no experience, and who doesn't understand my daughter's abilities - she even marks her homework wrong when it is right. The teacher emanates an air of hapless confusion and nerves, and this infects the kids (other parents are complaining, too).
So my daughter's self esteem has taken a severe knock overall, and even in areas where she clearly excels (reading) she is anxious, and at maths she just gives up. I believe all of this comes from a very poor teacher.
1. What do I do about it? Any pb-ers with advice?
And how did such a useless teacher get within 100 yards of a class? Grrr.
You're probably going to be the best person to teach her English. Whilst teachers may be qualified to teach English, you've managed to make a (very good) living out of words
So going by input on here we would soon have the children effing and blinding and proficient in seriously insulting people based on IQ, race or whatever.
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
What an utterly absurd post that indicates you actually have no understanding of what I am saying.
I think it is worth reflecting upon why Labour failed.
It is clearly not because they wanted to. It is not because they did not want the best for our children. It was not a lack of resources. So what went wrong?
If we cannot work that out we cannot really make progress. Some tentative thoughts would be:
(1) Our teacher training establishments are overloaded with very left wing sociologists who are more interested in social inequality than the mechanics of learning to teach. My sister, who is a primary school teacher, was driven mental at the nonsense they had to regurgitate in exams to be allowed to pass. That was some years ago but my wife is currently undergoing (very belatedly) teacher training at college and it is the same nonsense.
(2) The left orientation of teacher training encourages "solidarity" and rather disapproves of exceptionlism or even aspiration. Anything that marks a % of kids as having failed is thought to be bad. But curiously I would quote a sociologist in reply. Durkheim said that "without evil there is no good, without crime there is no justice." Without failure there is no success.
(3) There is a generational shift here that is genuinely difficult to get a handle on. As a child I read voraciously. My kids don't. There are too many distractions with endless TV, the internet, games consoles, mobile phones, social media etc. Not all of these are bad by any means but I really wonder if education is designed to cope with the products of the modern world.
Just remember any issue with Education are nothing to do with the previous Labour Government and definitely nothing to do with our glorious hardworking teachers. Its all the tories fault. Never forget that!
Teachers teach what they are told to teach.
Schools and teachers have had fortunes thrown at them over the past 12 years and yet education standards here are tumbling in comparison with our competitors. Whose fault is that?
Education standards are not tumbling. But they have not risen either. And I'd blame government for that - and private exam boards.
I sometimes wonder if it is helpful for education to have become such a political football, with both parties accusing the other of failing children and announcing endless "initiatives" most of which are forgotten almost as soon as the media launch is over. If more effort was put into finding a national consensus and less into the blame game it might be easier to make progress.
The UK has some of the world's best universities - the government does not interfere in their organistion or curricula on a daily basis, or ever in most cases, so is endless government interference in schools really beneficial?
This country has been crap at pre-university education for a long time now. I don't see any signs of that changing unfortunately. It cannot be beyond the wit of politicians to develop an education strategy that would survive changes of government, but sadly it seems to be.
Surely, the equation of money with success. Blair's constant mantra at PMQs when faced with anecdotal evidence of failure from employers was
'the money is going in, what help would a 20% cut be?'
Labour thought more money would equal success. They were completely wrong.
Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
What an utterly absurd post that indicates you actually have no understanding of what I am saying.
You said we never had a conversation. I've proved we've had it.
You're the one being absurd. Just go back and read your posts.
Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!
I think it is worth reflecting upon why Labour failed.
It is clearly not because they wanted to. It is not because they did not want the best for our children. It was not a lack of resources. So what went wrong?
If we cannot work that out we cannot really make progress. Some tentative thoughts would be:
(1) Our teacher training establishments are overloaded with very left wing sociologists who are more interested in social inequality than the mechanics of learning to teach. My sister, who is a primary school teacher, was driven mental at the nonsense they had to regurgitate in exams to be allowed to pass. That was some years ago but my wife is currently undergoing (very belatedly) teacher training at college and it is the same nonsense.
(2) The left orientation of teacher training encourages "solidarity" and rather disapproves of exceptionlism or even aspiration. Anything that marks a % of kids as having failed is thought to be bad. But curiously I would quote a sociologist in reply. Durkheim said that "without evil there is no good, without crime there is no justice." Without failure there is no success.
(3) There is a generational shift here that is genuinely difficult to get a handle on. As a child I read voraciously. My kids don't. There are too many distractions with endless TV, the internet, games consoles, mobile phones, social media etc. Not all of these are bad by any means but I really wonder if education is designed to cope with the products of the modern world.
As you imply, the influence of left-wing sociologists at teacher training has been going on for decades - would be interesting to find out who and why allowed it to be introduced (or was this part of 60s liberalism).
I wonder how many Education Ministers have visited a teacher training college and sat through some of the lectures - probably none, but it is about time one did.
With regard to the influence of electronic media, there are some excellent educational TV programmes, but how much of the detail do we absorb if we do not re-look at it A book has the advantage of being able to go-back immediately to comprehend a point.
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
What an utterly absurd post that indicates you actually have no understanding of what I am saying.
You said we never had a conversation. I've proved we've had it.
You're the one being absurd. Just go back and read your posts.
You said that I was defending Labour policies. I have made it absolutely clear on here and in any number of previous threads that I think Labour's policies were deeply flawed. Also, in the quote of mine that you provided I did not state that we would be seeing the results of improvements in primary literacy and numeracy levels by now. Indeed, as the PISA tests were taken in 2012, the same year that you say our exchange (not conversation) took place, it is pretty clear that I was talking about the future not the present.
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
He misquoted me as saying "All working class people want Grammar schools" when I had actually said "There are plenty of working class people who..."
This led to him arguing against something I hadn't said, at length... an easy enough mistake to make
But when I pointed out I hadn't said what he had quoted & asked for him to acknowledge this, he refused to admit the error, refused to apologised for the misquote, then practically admitted his guilt by spending the next few months analysing my posts and commenting on any "errors" in the style of Mr Logic from Viz... not helped by Arsenal pipping Spurs to 4th at which point 20 year League table trends ceased to be the indicator of which team was performing better
ie I said, tongue in cheek "No one in London has heard of Alex Salmond"
He took the time to say that he knew people in London who had heard of him and it was an exaggeration to say no one had
This only stopped when he said
" May 18 • edited May 18
SouthamObserver said: » show previous quotes Greek or Cypriot? I grew up in Camden and there were a lot of the latter before they all moved further out to Palmers Green and similar places. There were a lot of fights with Turks in the mid-70s, I remember. "
Which allowed me to say
""before they all moved further out to Palmers Green"
Gross exaggeration
Every single one moved?
Arent you making a generalisation about these people?
Will you stop digging me out for these minor oversights now you are plainly doing it as well PLEASE???!!! "
No reply to that one and the Mr Logic persecution ended.
Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!
The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.
And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.
Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!
The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.
And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.
Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.
Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!
The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.
And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.
Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
What an utterly absurd post that indicates you actually have no understanding of what I am saying.
You said we never had a conversation. I've proved we've had it.
You're the one being absurd. Just go back and read your posts.
You said that I was defending Labour policies. I have made it absolutely clear on here and in any number of previous threads that I think Labour's policies were deeply flawed. Also, in the quote of mine that you provided I did not state that we would be seeing the results of improvements in primary literacy and numeracy levels by now. Indeed, as the PISA tests were taken in 2012, the same year that you say our exchange (not conversation) took place, it is pretty clear that I was talking about the future not the present.
Oh lordy, you're splitting hairs between "exchange" and "conversation" now? You are being absolutely ludicrous.
And I don't say it happened; it happened. Don't imply I'm making it up - that was a direct quote from you. Unless you're calling me a liar who made up the quote?
It's probably best if we let others decide. I stand by my statements.
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
What an utterly absurd post that indicates you actually have no understanding of what I am saying.
You said we never had a conversation. I've proved we've had it.
You're the one being absurd. Just go back and read your posts.
You said that I was defending Labour policies. I have made it absolutely clear on here and in any number of previous threads that I think Labour's policies were deeply flawed. Also, in the quote of mine that you provided I did not state that we would be seeing the results of improvements in primary literacy and numeracy levels by now. Indeed, as the PISA tests were taken in 2012, the same year that you say our exchange (not conversation) took place, it is pretty clear that I was talking about the future not the present.
Oh lordy, you're splitting hairs between "exchange" and "conversation" now? You are being absolutely ludicrous.
And I don't say it happened; it happened. Don't imply I'm making it up - that was a direct quote from you. Unless you're calling me a liar who made up the quote?
It's probably best if we let others decide. I stand by my statements.
I am sure it happened. I just don't know when. You said it was 18 months ago - so in 2012. And as I said back then, at the same time as these PISA tests were being taken, "It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond." I stand by that.
Comments
You are on very thin ice there
So how do we explain the PISA findings that our private sector schools are no better - perhaps even worse - than the public sector ones?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10490614/OECD-education-report-Lessons-for-the-UK-from-other-nations.html
We had daily Latin tests for the first 10 mins - where she'd chalk up various things we were supposed to know, and then were compelled to pass our answers at random to another victim for marking.
We never ever went into her class not knowing our stuff - I'd not want her to be my mother [her daughter was a couple of years above me] but golly was she effective.
My parents and grandparents were determined that I had the best education.
They gave me tests on the things I had learned at school. I had to learn new words every day, and use them in context.
My father wouldn't get Sky for many years, because he didn't want it distracting me from my studies.
I acknowledge that some parents for a variety of reasons, out of their control, don't have the opportunity to spend time on their children's education.
Clearly you do not know how school assessments are undertaken? Do you seriously believe they are not looked at by outside sources. This is a major part of what OFSTED inspectors do.
Do you believe, then, that teachers deliberately underplayed literacy and numeracy results in 1996 and then started to manipulate them from 1997 onwards?
Stop looking for crumbs of comfort in the results. Let private schools continue what they are doing, and concentrate on Labour's utter, abject failures.
You really are complacent. You should be saying: "We should be working to make our kids the brightest in the world." Instead your attitude is "We're mid-table. Let's navel gaze for a while."
Labour's attitude written large.
I'd explain it like PISA do, that socio-economic effects have a big impact on results. So if you're shelling out £10k a year, it sort defines the socio-economics.
Rather makes the case for restored social mobility.
Programming should probably be part of the school curriculum these days. Gove said it would be the new latin, but I have no idea if it is taught properly in schools.
You really are complacent. You should be saying: "We should be working to make our kids the brightest in the world." Instead your attitude is "We're mid-table. Let's navel gaze for a while."
Labour's attitude written large.
Nope - you are just making things up again. What I said was that the results were not "shocking". What I have also said is that we clearly need to improve. But we cannot improve unless we accept where we are, which is not at the bottom but in the middle with most of our competitors.
As for the private sector; as it is failing to produce any value-added for those that make use of it, perhaps we can all agree that there is little that it can teach the public sector, which actually performs better than it does once socio economic factors are included.
anything but PISA and Ed McCluskey.
A great way to expose those who didn't translate at all - buggers. I still recall one translation test where IIRC I was lost and saw a word that I think meant tenement building or fire-engine. And I got it wrong.
The private schools do do better. But not if you take socio-economic background into account. So, yes, better off kids or kids whose parents read to them or kids whose parents make them do homework or kids who actually give a shit do well - but apart from that they're the same. What a load of bollocks. Results are results and excuses or dismissals don't help anyone.
One other thing about most private schools or the best, competitive, hard driving state schools is that pupils generally emerge able to communicate, with some confidence, and a good level of social and employable skills. PISA can't test that - but employers and university admissions tutors can.
Our state education sector is crippled with a lefty PC 'prizes for all' attitude, bequeated to it and reinforced for 13 years of abject failure. The system needs an Alt/Ctrl/Delete.
Where is @Bobajob with his "Who cares guys? Get over it" attitude on this one?
It looks as though I was right.
And whilst I am not a teacher, I have talked to teachers about the assessment process, which they tend to dislike.
And don't make up rubbish. I've criticised the last Conservative government for the illiteracy and innumeracy levels as well - it's hard to get a handle on. But Labour threw money at smoke and mirrors.
All the things I learned at school that stuck were learned by rote. Times tables, vocabulary, formula, dates blah blah - without that bedrock of knowledge how could I put everything else into context?
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/11/26/1385462288392/Chelsea-s-Jos--Mourinho--016.jpg
As for the private sector; as it is failing to produce any value-added for those that make use of it, perhaps we can all agree that there is little that it can teach the public sector, which actually performs better than it does once socio economic factors are included.
well you sort of are complacent, since we're in the middle and heading down as we have been since 2000. And while some of the drop is simply that more countries have joined the melee ( so we wouldn't have been 4th in 2000 in any case ), the UK is still heading in the wrong direction. We no longer rank in the top 20 on any subject, and while the rate of decline might be slowing it's still a decline. Really it's time for a re-think on what we're doing and to recognise that post 97 education policies have not delivered, despite the rhetoric.
As for the private sector; as it is failing to produce any value-added for those that make use of it, perhaps we can all agree that there is little that it can teach the public sector, which actually performs better than it does once socio economic factors are included.
But you make things up in arguments and refuse to retract them yourself? How can you be so hypocritical?
Why didn't Gove follow the welsh labour model, that is destroying the futures of many young people in that country, most from poor backgrounds??
Lazy fu8kwits as well who can't wait for 3.15 to come around and they go on unchallenged year in, year out. My one issue with Gove is that nothing seems to have changed in fact they seem to manipulate even more time off than when Labour was in charge. Difficult to promote a work ethic amongst children as a parent, when such idle tw*ts are in charge of them at school. It really is a national disgrace and in secondary schools it is a majority of inadequate or bone idle teachers not a minority.
They did not find that. They found that private schools are hugely better. They then make a massive adjustment for what they think might be one of the reasons. That adjustment is a guess.
My favourite book was Brewer's Phrase and Fable. If you don't have a copy and love factoids/idioms etc - its well worth it.
As I mentioned downthread my son's school will have an ipad for every kid in the new year. My daughter, who is doing higher business, has to do presentations using powerpoint (I know) and excel. Much of the music classes in the older years involve technology that did not exist when I was at school. Languages use internet to read material in other countries and to hear the different accents.
This is a major challenge to our teaching profession who will constantly find that they are teaching kids more familiar with the technology than they are.
As for the private sector; as it is failing to produce any value-added for those that make use of it, perhaps we can all agree that there is little that it can teach the public sector, which actually performs better than it does once socio economic factors are included.
Stop accusing me of making things up before you make even more of an idiot of yourself.
Perhaps start by reading your posts below.
If other parents are experiencing the same thing, there is something wrong with the teacher. Maybe she needs to go back to school herself.
Write to the principal as a group about the concerns with her?
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
Why does a kid need to learn how to program? They can't replace a plug nevermind write code to do whatever.
It strikes me as very odd. And I come from a family where Dad wrote in 0100101010101111 on pajama paper.
I accuse you of trying to get the Llama of the year award :-)
That most of the sporting, political and media elite are from non-comprehensive educations - I think we can draw a few unflattering conclusions here.
I think this makes sense. One area of education that is utterly commercial is the market for professional qualification training. It takes two or three years to qualify as an accountant for example. People can't afford to waste their time and money on this. So results count and the only objective measure is what you really know that's useful in the end and can demonstrate this to an examiner or employer. The best companies in this space (such as BPP) could teach alot to the teaching profession and universities about the actual practice of teaching effectively. No wonder the universities are so vehemently opposed to commercial organisations such as this being allowed to award degrees - they'd get blown away by more more capable competition. Economics desgree from Oxford or from BPP? As an employer I'd prefer the BPP degree!
I was, it was no Millfield, but it was and is the best school in Yorkshire.
I was.
Our teachers are too busy to teach with all of the above going on.
It is an extrapolation, just as the results of the very small number of kids who took the PISA tests in the UK have been extrapolated. Either you accept PISA is a legitimate source of information or you do not.
Currently Governor of one state primary school, whilst wanting my 3 year old to go to a different one which is much better (Ofsted Outstanding instead of Requires Improvement). (I am working on improving the first, but it is a long and slow process...)
_______________
My colleague informs me that she sees Susanna as the most likely winner. She doesn't bet, but is a keen viewer and is a good source of info on this. She thinks that Patrick could pip Sophie.
She doesn't think Nathalie will carry the public vote though she is a top dancer.
One answer would be to deliberately encourage people with experience from, say, the business community or sport.
Are pupils more likely to respek a teacher who comes in Blinged up and suited and booted having parked his Porsche next to the headmaster's Audi?
When we encountered a supply teacher who didn't match their robustness, they were annihilated by pupils who asked searching questions that exposed their intellectual weak-points.
At primary school - I was told I was lying when I said I'd read the set book - it was about pirates. It took about 20mins to finish it. I arrived at school with a very large vocabulary and able to read well - and was called a liar by my own teacher in front of everyone else. This put me off for years ever saying that I was bored blah blah.
I'm surely not the only bright kid with keen parents who's experienced this attitude.
MILFs like Susanna Reid haven't done well/won in the recent years.
Educated at an excellent Grammar School which was full of inspirational teachers and had an ex-Harrovian master as Head and so it was run on public school lines. Prefects were in charge of school discipline (under the eye of the deputy head) and so receved excellent experience in 'man-management'.
A quote of yours from July last year:
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
It is clearly not because they wanted to. It is not because they did not want the best for our children. It was not a lack of resources. So what went wrong?
If we cannot work that out we cannot really make progress. Some tentative thoughts would be:
(1) Our teacher training establishments are overloaded with very left wing sociologists who are more interested in social inequality than the mechanics of learning to teach. My sister, who is a primary school teacher, was driven mental at the nonsense they had to regurgitate in exams to be allowed to pass. That was some years ago but my wife is currently undergoing (very belatedly) teacher training at college and it is the same nonsense.
(2) The left orientation of teacher training encourages "solidarity" and rather disapproves of exceptionlism or even aspiration. Anything that marks a % of kids as having failed is thought to be bad. But curiously I would quote a sociologist in reply. Durkheim said that "without evil there is no good, without crime there is no justice." Without failure there is no success.
(3) There is a generational shift here that is genuinely difficult to get a handle on. As a child I read voraciously. My kids don't. There are too many distractions with endless TV, the internet, games consoles, mobile phones, social media etc. Not all of these are bad by any means but I really wonder if education is designed to cope with the products of the modern world.
Plus inspections, aggressive, boorish, ignorant parents and scurrilous accusations from hostile pupils. 'He touched me sir!'
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
Brown and yellow? Like a banana toffee split? Really?
The UK has some of the world's best universities - the government does not interfere in their organistion or curricula on a daily basis, or ever in most cases, so is endless government interference in schools really beneficial?
Surely, the equation of money with success. Blair's constant mantra at PMQs when faced with anecdotal evidence of failure from employers was
'the money is going in, what help would a 20% cut be?'
Labour thought more money would equal success. They were completely wrong.
*Yes Mr Dancer, you can say it.
You're the one being absurd. Just go back and read your posts.
Since I started banging on about Spain in June, the stock market is up 40%. Just saying...
As you imply, the influence of left-wing sociologists at teacher training has been going on for decades - would be interesting to find out who and why allowed it to be introduced (or was this part of 60s liberalism).
I wonder how many Education Ministers have visited a teacher training college and sat through some of the lectures - probably none, but it is about time one did.
With regard to the influence of electronic media, there are some excellent educational TV programmes, but how much of the detail do we absorb if we do not re-look at it A book has the advantage of being able to go-back immediately to comprehend a point.
This led to him arguing against something I hadn't said, at length... an easy enough mistake to make
But when I pointed out I hadn't said what he had quoted & asked for him to acknowledge this, he refused to admit the error, refused to apologised for the misquote, then practically admitted his guilt by spending the next few months analysing my posts and commenting on any "errors" in the style of Mr Logic from Viz... not helped by Arsenal pipping Spurs to 4th at which point 20 year League table trends ceased to be the indicator of which team was performing better
ie I said, tongue in cheek "No one in London has heard of Alex Salmond"
He took the time to say that he knew people in London who had heard of him and it was an exaggeration to say no one had
This only stopped when he said
"
May 18 • edited May 18
SouthamObserver said:
» show previous quotes
Greek or Cypriot? I grew up in Camden and there were a lot of the latter before they all moved further out to Palmers Green and similar places. There were a lot of fights with Turks in the mid-70s, I remember. "
Which allowed me to say
""before they all moved further out to Palmers Green"
Gross exaggeration
Every single one moved?
Arent you making a generalisation about these people?
Will you stop digging me out for these minor oversights now you are plainly doing it as well PLEASE???!!! "
No reply to that one and the Mr Logic persecution ended.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25201692
Was there ever a worse government than the Blair/Brown monstrosity ?
And I don't say it happened; it happened. Don't imply I'm making it up - that was a direct quote from you. Unless you're calling me a liar who made up the quote?
It's probably best if we let others decide. I stand by my statements.
When privately educated folk (in any party), tried to "fix" state schools by making them more like private institutions.
They are different. They have different strengths. Public schoolboys generally don't have the experience to understand that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/coffeebreak/cartoons/mac.html