Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analaysis: The UK Economy – It’s Not About The Brexit

245

Comments

  • Full details on how a government is formed in a hung parliament:

    In general terms, if the incumbent government loses their majority they resign. The monarch would then ask the leader of the party which can command control of the House of Commons to form a government. However, if no party commands a majority, the previous government remains in office until it is clear who can form a government either in coalition or as a minority administration.

    http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04951/SN04951.pdf

    http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7163/CBP-7163.pdf
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+

    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.

    That is a posting based almost entirely on a biased and very partial view.

    If you are in a county with Grammar schools like Lincolnshire then every child who is considered suitable by the Junior school for entry is tutored by that school on the basics of the 11+. There is no additional tutoring necessary.

    And as I have already pointed out, the studies show that there is no drop in standards at the non selective schools who are in Grammar catchment areas.

    Grammar schools undoubtedly promote social mobility.
    As I said - some actual data would be informative on pre Grammar tutoring levels and their increase.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,776
    @rcs1000 Good video.
    Yes, you have often argued that a major weakness of the UK economy is overconsumption and the low savings rate. And indeed that it is connected to the balance of payments. This is a chronic problem and has been so since the end of WWII. In the era of fixed exchange rates it lay behind our stop-go policy making. It was also why we were particularly vulnerable to the great oil price spike and recession of the 1970s.
    But it was not always so. In former times we had built up huge net overseas assets, which is why we benefited for years from the interest, profits and dividends in the balance of payments - now gone into reverse as you point out.
    So we should ask ourselves why we have saved so little since WWII. I think a prime cause is to be found in the post-war welfare state including the NHS. For many families the need to save seriously for a rainy day has been much diminished by that. How many other countries have this cradle-to-grave social philosophy? None have chosen the NHS route to health care.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    :

    .

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+

    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    Every child I know at grammar school (and many who failed the 11+) either;

    a) went to a fee-paying private primary school where the focus was solely on passing the test
    b) had a private tutor or
    c) had a parent able to tutor them

    It is no longer question of all the kids ust turning up and sitting the test one day without any prior warning, as apparently it was in the 1970s. Only about 50% of kids round here even sit the test as the rest are not entered by their (mainly working class) parents. It is very unlikely that a 10-year-old could pass the non-Verbal reasoning part of the test without some prior practice, even adults would struggle. State primary schools do not teach this and are barred from preparing their kids specifically for the test.

    Grammar schools take 23% of the brightest kids and most motivated parents away from surrounding schools. In doing so they take away many of the best role models and most aspirational people. Grammar schools prevent social mobility rather than enhancing it.



    That is a posting based almost entirely on a biased and very partial view.

    If you are in a county with Grammar schools like Lincolnshire then every child who is considered suitable by the Junior school for entry is tutored by that school on the basics of the 11+. There is no additional tutoring necessary.

    And as I have already pointed out, the studies show that there is no drop in standards at the non selective schools who are in Grammar catchment areas.

    Grammar schools undoubtedly promote social mobility.
    How can you know there is no drop in standard? How about late developers who never blossom as a consequence? Why do you need separate schools? What does it achieve that streaming doesn't, but which also gives you flexibility for the late developers?

    I certainly have a horror tale to tell from the 60s. I appreciate times were different then, but the principles stand.
  • You gov reports big move to TM from women

    And this was before the 'Dads Army' car crash appearance yesterday
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,668

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

  • Laura must be unwell

    Laura Kuenssberg

    Verified account

    @bbclaurak
    3h3 hours ago
    More
    Good q from Corbyn - are there any circumstances where UK would leave without a deal - PM avoids answering

    I remarked that it was a good question as well - of course he totally fluffed the follow up.....
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    TGOHF said:

    The terms of the meaningful vote mean the government may ask parliament for its approval only after the Council and the European Parliament have approved the deal, which is to say, by that point, it really will have be finalised.

    As to what happens once the meaningful vote goes against the deal... The legislation helpfully does not say. Presumably this is where Parliament comes in.

    Is momentum now pushing towards the vote passing ?

    Brexiteers being peeled off, Ken Clarke voting in favour - just needs a concession or two for the DUP and May could be home and hosed. No doubt with a few Labour MPs staying away or backing her.

    Odds moving in Mays favour I think.
    You have changed your tune. You were dead set against it weren't you?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Anazina said:

    TGOHF said:

    The terms of the meaningful vote mean the government may ask parliament for its approval only after the Council and the European Parliament have approved the deal, which is to say, by that point, it really will have be finalised.

    As to what happens once the meaningful vote goes against the deal... The legislation helpfully does not say. Presumably this is where Parliament comes in.

    Is momentum now pushing towards the vote passing ?

    Brexiteers being peeled off, Ken Clarke voting in favour - just needs a concession or two for the DUP and May could be home and hosed. No doubt with a few Labour MPs staying away or backing her.

    Odds moving in Mays favour I think.
    You have changed your tune. You were dead set against it weren't you?
    I'm still not in favour - but I now think there is a good chance it will pass.

  • Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    Over 40% of youngsters go to university - the majority not via a grammar school.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+
    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    Not a PBer, but my other half's father went to a secondary modern and ended up as a toxicology lecturer.
  • Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    I was from a comprehensive. Not a great one I am afraid. About 1300 kids in total and only about 30 in each year would go on to do A levels.
  • kjh said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    :

    .

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+

    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    Every child I know at grammar school (and many who failed the 11+) either;

    a) went to a fee-paying private primary school where the focus was solely on passing the test
    b) had a private tutor or
    c) had a parent able to tutor them

    It is no longer question of all the kids ust turning up and sitting the test one day without any prior warning, as apparently it was in the 1970s. Only about 50% of kids round here even sit the test as the rest are not entered by their (mainly working class) parents. It is very unlikely that a 10-year-old could pass the non-Verbal reasoning part of the test without some prior practice, even adults would struggle. State primary schools do not teach this and are barred from preparing their kids specifically for the test.

    Grammar schools take 23% of the brightest kids and most motivated parents away from surrounding schools. In doing so they take away many of the best role models and most aspirational people. Grammar schools prevent social mobility rather than enhancing it.



    That is a posting based almost entirely on a biased and very partial view.

    If you are in a county with Grammar schools like Lincolnshire then every child who is considered suitable by the Junior school for entry is tutored by that school on the basics of the 11+. There is no additional tutoring necessary.

    And as I have already pointed out, the studies show that there is no drop in standards at the non selective schools who are in Grammar catchment areas.

    Grammar schools undoubtedly promote social mobility.
    How can you know there is no drop in standard? How about late developers who never blossom as a consequence? Why do you need separate schools? What does it achieve that streaming doesn't, but which also gives you flexibility for the late developers?

    I certainly have a horror tale to tell from the 60s. I appreciate times were different then, but the principles stand.
    What proportion of comprehemsives use setting for academic classes?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987
    sarissa said:

    “Conservative former sports minister Tracey Crouch and Labour's Alison McGovern, Louise Haigh and Stephanie Peacock were also kitted out for the kickabout and posed for photos, including making use of the despatch boxes and Speaker's chair” - but trust the Scotsman to make it an ‘SNP Bad’ headline!
    Trying to deflect from their dodgy administration
  • kjh said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    :

    .

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+

    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    Every child I know at grammar school (and many who failed the 11+) either;

    a) went to a fee-paying private primary school where the focus was solely on passing the test
    b) had a private tutor or
    c) had a parent able to tutor them

    It is no longer question of all the kids ust turning up and sitting the test one day without any prior warning, as apparently it was in the 1970s. Only about 50% of kids round here even sit the test as the rest are not entered by their (mainly working class) parents. It is very unlikely that a 10-year-old could pass the non-Verbal reasoning part of the test without some prior practice, even adults would struggle. State primary schools do not teach this and are barred from preparing their kids specifically for the test.

    Grammar schools take 23% of the brightest kids and most motivated parents away from surrounding schools. In doing so they take away many of the best role models and most aspirational people. Grammar schools prevent social mobility rather than enhancing it.



    That is a posting based almost entirely on a biased and very partial view.

    If you are in a county with Grammar schools like Lincolnshire then every child who is considered suitable by the Junior school for entry is tutored by that school on the basics of the 11+. There is no additional tutoring necessary.

    And as I have already pointed out, the studies show that there is no drop in standards at the non selective schools who are in Grammar catchment areas.

    Grammar schools undoubtedly promote social mobility.
    How can you know there is no drop in standard? How about late developers who never blossom as a consequence? Why do you need separate schools? What does it achieve that streaming doesn't, but which also gives you flexibility for the late developers?

    I certainly have a horror tale to tell from the 60s. I appreciate times were different then, but the principles stand.
    I am just looking at the studies done on this. If you don't agree then argue with the Sutton Trust. After all their whole raison d'etre is improving social mobility in education.
  • Laura must be unwell

    Laura Kuenssberg

    Verified account

    @bbclaurak
    3h3 hours ago
    More
    Good q from Corbyn - are there any circumstances where UK would leave without a deal - PM avoids answering

    I remarked that it was a good question as well - of course he totally fluffed the follow up.....
    He did what to the follow up?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,400

    What proportion of comprehemsives use setting for academic classes?

    Close to 100%, I would estimate.

    Of course, I'm a comprehensive school boy, so it may be that maths isn't my forte.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Not sure how that is a disaster for May - if they cry off it gives her the upper hand.
  • Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,668

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    I was from a comprehensive. Not a great one I am afraid. About 1300 kids in total and only about 30 in each year would go on to do A levels.
    My brother failed his 11+ in 1973, but fortunately the same year the system went Comprehensive in the borough. He got AAB in 1981 and went on to LSE for a degree, getting a 2:1, a MA and a glittering career. I cannot believe that he would have done anywhere like as well if he had gone to a Sec Mod.

    The very low numbers of Grammar School kids on FSM, compared to at adjacent Secondary Moderns says a lot about who gets in.
  • Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
    That is my reasoning
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,400

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    I was from a comprehensive. Not a great one I am afraid. About 1300 kids in total and only about 30 in each year would go on to do A levels.
    Without information on how many years (grades) your school covered, you haven't given us much information. If your school was one of the very few that went from Reception to Year 13, then a very high proportion of kids went to university.

    On the other hand, if you went to an Upper School, which took kids only from Year 9, then it was very low. If your school had a sixth form, that also changes the numbers. You need to give us the number of people in Year 11 to help us understand exactly how good - or bad - your school was.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    TGOHF said:

    Not sure how that is a disaster for May - if they cry off it gives her the upper hand.
    The hard remain side interpretation of this is just as bit as bonkers as anyone else's, witness :

    https://twitter.com/paulstpancras/status/1065261207853113344

    Unhinged.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,839
    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    I went to a comprehensive that had only just become comprehensive from having been a secondary modern. I passed the 11+ exam. I don't know whether any of my fellow pupils were coached, certainly I wasn't.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    May's told the DUP, the ERG, Labour and the country that this deal is the hill she will die on. She just needs to do that with the EU too.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Laura must be unwell

    Laura Kuenssberg

    Verified account

    @bbclaurak
    3h3 hours ago
    More
    Good q from Corbyn - are there any circumstances where UK would leave without a deal - PM avoids answering

    I remarked that it was a good question as well - of course he totally fluffed the follow up.....
    May kept saying that he had not read the agreement.
    That what she was doing was in the national interest.
    That he was playing party politics.

    May came over as trite to me.
  • Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    Not sure how that is a disaster for May - if they cry off it gives her the upper hand.
    The hard remain side interpretation of this is just as bit as bonkers as anyone else's, witness :

    https://twitter.com/paulstpancras/status/1065261207853113344

    Unhinged.
    But they have not agreed TM deal if this happens.

    I do not see this as a negative for TM
  • Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+
    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    Not a PBer, but my other half's father went to a secondary modern and ended up as a toxicology lecturer.
    That sounds toxic
  • Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
    How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
    How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
    Yes - some of this may be faux froth from our EU friends.

  • Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
    I suspect any internal EU squabble will be swiftly be followed by a closing of ranks.....and a worse deal for the UK.
  • Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
    How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
    It will look like this deal or no deal if they can even agree this deal
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783
    edited November 2018
    Delet
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    My holiday host said Macron was "un mauvaise"...
  • I have no sympathy but where would it leave Barnier
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,834



    I am just looking at the studies done on this. If you don't agree then argue with the Sutton Trust. After all their whole raison d'etre is improving social mobility in education.

    This Sutton Trust? https://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/grammar-schools-widen-gap-rich-poor/

    https://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/grammar-schools-are-no-better-for-bright-pupils-say-researchers/
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    All last week, May's dodgy deal apologists on here and elsewhere were telling us the deal was done, no further negotiations were possible.

    It's good to have some confirmation that you were all, as usual, totally full of shit.

    It seems the deal is very much still being negotiated. Unless you're British of course. Then "the deal is done".
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783
    Yes. I went to a Sec Mod in the 60s.

    I have no memory of taking the 11+ but I clearly failed impressively because I was streamed from it in the Sec Mod in a class where I was not expected to take any O Levels or CSEs. As a consequence I spent much of my time being taught Gardening, Metalwork and Woodwork and did not take any language nor English Literature.

    I assume I started to blossom as I went up a class and then in the exams we took to decide whether you took an O level or CSE in each subject I came top in the year in all subjects I took except English. I achieved the top grade in all O levels except English which I still passed.

    I transferred to the Grammar School. I together with 3 grammar school boys were identified to be fast tracked taking an A level after 1 year. I then went to Manchester University to study Mathematics.

    I saw many Secondary School pupils in the 5th year who would have flourished at the Grammar School, but the norm was just to leave after O levels and many Grammar School boys who left with only a few O levels. I am incompetent at practical stuff, but that is what I was taught. I am academic but missed on on languages (which I really regret) and literature. The Grammar school boys missed out on practical subjects.

    I also suffered discrimination from having the Secondary School on my CV, although I was proud to have it there e.g. Of the 4 fast tracked boys I was asked for higher A level grades for Uni places even if there wasn't an interview. The only distinguishing difference was the school.

    Rant over!
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited November 2018



    I do not see this as a negative for TM

    Theresa May could be on fire in a ditch and you'd announce that this just proves people are warming to her.

  • felixfelix Posts: 13,821
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+






    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    I was from a comprehensive. Not a great one I am afraid. About 1300 kids in total and only about 30 in each year would go on to do A levels.
    My brother failed his 11+ in 1973, but fortunately the same year the system went Comprehensive in the borough. He got AAB in 1981 and went on to LSE for a degree, getting a 2:1, a MA and a glittering career. I cannot believe that he would have done anywhere like as well if he had gone to a Sec Mod.

    The very low numbers of Grammar School kids on FSM, compared to at adjacent Secondary Moderns says a lot about who gets in.
    My brother failed at 11, went to sec mod, worked hard and 2 years later passed at 13+. Then went on to do well. Crdit to his sec mod I think.


  • That is a posting based almost entirely on a biased and very partial view.

    If you are in a county with Grammar schools like Lincolnshire then every child who is considered suitable by the Junior school for entry is tutored by that school on the basics of the 11+. There is no additional tutoring necessary.

    And as I have already pointed out, the studies show that there is no drop in standards at the non selective schools who are in Grammar catchment areas.

    Grammar schools undoubtedly promote social mobility.


    I'm not a fan, but I'm happy to concede that's based mainly on my own anecdotal experience (as a pupil and parent) of great comprehensives with highly-effective streaming which gave me a bunch of good A levels and have already sent my eldest to Oxford. Had any of mine been deemed sec mod candidates at 11, I'm pretty sure I'd have felt it very early to have judged them.

    One practical concern - in a rural area where secondary schools are thin on the ground (maybe 15+ miles apart), is it really practical for the local one to go one way or the other and leave one "stream" of kids a couple of hours a day on a bus?


  • I do not see this as a negative for TM

    Theresa May could be on fire in a ditch and you'd announce that this just proves people are warming to her.

    If Theresa May could walk on water you'd be saying that's evidence that she cannot swim.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,125
    edited November 2018
    Peterborough MP's trial goes into another day.

    https://twitter.com/NavtejJohal/status/1065279183381819392
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,236
    edited November 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    Not sure how that is a disaster for May - if they cry off it gives her the upper hand.
    The hard remain side interpretation of this is just as bit as bonkers as anyone else's, witness :

    https://twitter.com/paulstpancras/status/1065261207853113344

    Unhinged.
    If there is No Deal because EU governments will not accept the deal that Michel Barnier and Sabine Weyand have negotiated on their behalf, then no blame can attach to Theresa May or the British government. Both sides will just have to work hard to mitigate the consequences.

    But, I suspect it's grandstanding.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,789



    I do not see this as a negative for TM

    Theresa May could be on fire in a ditch and you'd announce that this just proves people are warming to her.

    If Theresa May could walk on water you'd be saying that's evidence that she cannot swim.
    Rome wasn't built in a day, but May wasn't on that job...
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,336
    malcolmg said:

    sarissa said:

    “Conservative former sports minister Tracey Crouch and Labour's Alison McGovern, Louise Haigh and Stephanie Peacock were also kitted out for the kickabout and posed for photos, including making use of the despatch boxes and Speaker's chair” - but trust the Scotsman to make it an ‘SNP Bad’ headline!
    Trying to deflect from their dodgy administration
    Given the similarities, should we refer to them as Johnston Press Plc (Heart of Midlothian version) or The Company Formerly Known As Johnston Press Plc (Rangers version)?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783



    That is a posting based almost entirely on a biased and very partial view.

    If you are in a county with Grammar schools like Lincolnshire then every child who is considered suitable by the Junior school for entry is tutored by that school on the basics of the 11+. There is no additional tutoring necessary.

    And as I have already pointed out, the studies show that there is no drop in standards at the non selective schools who are in Grammar catchment areas.

    Grammar schools undoubtedly promote social mobility.


    I'm not a fan, but I'm happy to concede that's based mainly on my own anecdotal experience (as a pupil and parent) of great comprehensives with highly-effective streaming which gave me a bunch of good A levels and have already sent my eldest to Oxford. Had any of mine been deemed sec mod candidates at 11, I'm pretty sure I'd have felt it very early to have judged them.

    One practical concern - in a rural area where secondary schools are thin on the ground (maybe 15+ miles apart), is it really practical for the local one to go one way or the other and leave one "stream" of kids a couple of hours a day on a bus?
    +1
  • When Tory MPs are still messing about unicorn-rustling and tweaking their back-of-fag-packet alternative Brexit plans, she will just say: “This is the deal, I think it’s pretty good in the end, it’s what there is. Vote for this and we can stop talking about Brexit.”

    And those last four words will carry a lot of sway with voters, and the people they elect.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/please-dont-go-voters-tell-stubborn-may-wwd0x2k2s
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    sarissa said:

    malcolmg said:

    sarissa said:

    “Conservative former sports minister Tracey Crouch and Labour's Alison McGovern, Louise Haigh and Stephanie Peacock were also kitted out for the kickabout and posed for photos, including making use of the despatch boxes and Speaker's chair” - but trust the Scotsman to make it an ‘SNP Bad’ headline!
    Trying to deflect from their dodgy administration
    Given the similarities, should we refer to them as Johnston Press Plc (Heart of Midlothian version) or The Company Formerly Known As Johnston Press Plc (Rangers version)?
    And the newspaper is now "The Sevman" ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,668
    edited November 2018
    kjh said:

    Yes. I went to a Sec Mod in the 60s.

    I have no memory of taking the 11+ but I clearly failed impressively because I was streamed from it in the Sec Mod in a class where I was not expected to take any O Levels or CSEs. As a consequence I spent much of my time being taught Gardening, Metalwork and Woodwork and did not take any language nor English Literature.

    I assume I started to blossom as I went up a class and then in the exams we took to decide whether you took an O level or CSE in each subject I came top in the year in all subjects I took except English. I achieved the top grade in all O levels except English which I still passed.

    I transferred to the Grammar School. I together with 3 grammar school boys were identified to be fast tracked taking an A level after 1 year. I then went to Manchester University to study Mathematics.

    I saw many Secondary School pupils in the 5th year who would have flourished at the Grammar School, but the norm was just to leave after O levels and many Grammar School boys who left with only a few O levels. I am incompetent at practical stuff, but that is what I was taught. I am academic but missed on on languages (which I really regret) and literature. The Grammar school boys missed out on practical subjects.

    I also suffered discrimination from having the Secondary School on my CV, although I was proud to have it there e.g. Of the 4 fast tracked boys I was asked for higher A level grades for Uni places even if there wasn't an interview. The only distinguishing difference was the school.

    Rant over!

    A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.

    Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.
  • Ha, the fire/water silliness reminds me of lines in my forthcoming Sir Edric story:
    “...You wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire.”
    “That doesn’t reflect my feelings at all.”
    I’d piss on him even if he weren’t on fire.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    TGOHF said:

    Anazina said:

    TGOHF said:

    The terms of the meaningful vote mean the government may ask parliament for its approval only after the Council and the European Parliament have approved the deal, which is to say, by that point, it really will have be finalised.

    As to what happens once the meaningful vote goes against the deal... The legislation helpfully does not say. Presumably this is where Parliament comes in.

    Is momentum now pushing towards the vote passing ?

    Brexiteers being peeled off, Ken Clarke voting in favour - just needs a concession or two for the DUP and May could be home and hosed. No doubt with a few Labour MPs staying away or backing her.

    Odds moving in Mays favour I think.
    You have changed your tune. You were dead set against it weren't you?
    I'm still not in favour - but I now think there is a good chance it will pass.

    Ah, fair enough.

    I too think she will squeak it through.
  • If the Tories lost a parliamentary VoNC (which I think is highly unlikely, but let's run with it), then my guess is that HMQ probably would ask Corbyn to form a government, unless the DUP were already clear that they would back a different Tory administration, and that administration could be in place within days. Corbyn would be jumping up and down for the chance and wouldn't be worried about embarrassing the Palace (indeed, you could expect noises off to be talking about Tory bias there). With that sort of pressure, and with the general historic precedent that the monarch usually calls the LotO when a government falls and (pre-FTPA) it didn't want to go to the country, the easiest option would be to invite him to form a government and to put it to the test in the House.

    The general historic precedent is that the monarch takes soundings as to who if anyone can command a majority, and only appoints someone as PM if he or she is likely to be able to do so. So unless Corbyn can tell the monarch (or actually the palace advisers) that he thinks he has enough support to win any confidence vote, he won't be appointed PM. In practice that would mean that Labour would have had to get agreement from the SNP, Plaid and the LibDems, and at least a promise of abstention from the DUP. Ain't very likely.
    I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.

    Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
  • That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783
    Again only anecdotal but evidence of either the flaw in selecting at 11 or the social impact it has, when I transferred to the Grammar (again this was the 60s) it was noticeable that:

    a) I outperformed all the Grammar school boys except 3
    b) Most that transferred with me were in the top quartile of the Grammar school boys

    I think the latter was mainly due to the expectations set after years in the Sec Mod. Pupils at the Sec Mod that could have gone on to do A levels and even degrees just left to go out to work. Only the very brightest transferred hence the disproportionate spread of ability.

    It also strikes me that although I was good at most subjects I had a flair for Mathematics. If that flair had been for languages or literature I would have been stuffed.

    A streamed Comprehensive overcomes all of that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,400
    Foxy said:

    kjh said:

    Yes. I went to a Sec Mod in the 60s.

    I have no memory of taking the 11+ but I clearly failed impressively because I was streamed from it in the Sec Mod in a class where I was not expected to take any O Levels or CSEs. As a consequence I spent much of my time being taught Gardening, Metalwork and Woodwork and did not take any language nor English Literature.

    I assume I started to blossom as I went up a class and then in the exams we took to decide whether you took an O level or CSE in each subject I came top in the year in all subjects I took except English. I achieved the top grade in all O levels except English which I still passed.

    I transferred to the Grammar School. I together with 3 grammar school boys were identified to be fast tracked taking an A level after 1 year. I then went to Manchester University to study Mathematics.

    I saw many Secondary School pupils in the 5th year who would have flourished at the Grammar School, but the norm was just to leave after O levels and many Grammar School boys who left with only a few O levels. I am incompetent at practical stuff, but that is what I was taught. I am academic but missed on on languages (which I really regret) and literature. The Grammar school boys missed out on practical subjects.

    I also suffered discrimination from having the Secondary School on my CV, although I was proud to have it there e.g. Of the 4 fast tracked boys I was asked for higher A level grades for Uni places even if there wasn't an interview. The only distinguishing difference was the school.

    Rant over!

    A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.

    Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.
    As an August child, I was also shocked to discover that (had I taken the 11 plus), I would have been only half as likely to pass as someone born in September. Given the life changing consequences of the 11 plus, a single exam - based on one day in your tenth year on planet earth - seems a little too random for me.

    (Disclaimer: my daughter is about to take the US version of the 11 plus in - oohhh - ten days time. We just discovered she's probably the only kid in her class not being tutored, so I've been doing a bit of exam familiarisation with her.)
  • That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
  • Foxy said:



    A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.

    Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.


    A bit like decisions over a country's place in international organisations?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,783
    Foxy said:

    kjh said:

    Yes. I went to a Sec Mod in the 60s.

    I have no memory of taking the 11+ but I clearly failed impressively because I was streamed from it in the Sec Mod in a class where I was not expected to take any O Levels or CSEs. As a consequence I spent much of my time being taught Gardening, Metalwork and Woodwork and did not take any language nor English Literature.

    I assume I started to blossom as I went up a class and then in the exams we took to decide whether you took an O level or CSE in each subject I came top in the year in all subjects I took except English. I achieved the top grade in all O levels except English which I still passed.

    I transferred to the Grammar School. I together with 3 grammar school boys were identified to be fast tracked taking an A level after 1 year. I then went to Manchester University to study Mathematics.

    I saw many Secondary School pupils in the 5th year who would have flourished at the Grammar School, but the norm was just to leave after O levels and many Grammar School boys who left with only a few O levels. I am incompetent at practical stuff, but that is what I was taught. I am academic but missed on on languages (which I really regret) and literature. The Grammar school boys missed out on practical subjects.

    I also suffered discrimination from having the Secondary School on my CV, although I was proud to have it there e.g. Of the 4 fast tracked boys I was asked for higher A level grades for Uni places even if there wasn't an interview. The only distinguishing difference was the school.

    Rant over!

    A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.

    Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.
    +1 Do you get the feeling I have a chip on my shoulder :)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    At least tommorow's afternoon thread should be a nice distraction from Brexit.
  • rcs1000 said:



    Without information on how many years (grades) your school covered, you haven't given us much information. If your school was one of the very few that went from Reception to Year 13, then a very high proportion of kids went to university.

    On the other hand, if you went to an Upper School, which took kids only from Year 9, then it was very low. If your school had a sixth form, that also changes the numbers. You need to give us the number of people in Year 11 to help us understand exactly how good - or bad - your school was.

    It was a standard Comprehensive. Ages 11 to 18. So something just over 180 kids in each year (8 sets of 30-32) of whom around 30 went into the 6th form. - about 1 in 8.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,214
    edited November 2018
    If the summit is called off, then presumably the Brexit deal will become the lead item at the (possibly lengthened) scheduled December summit, currently due on 13-14 December. The Commons is due to break up for Christmas on 20 December, so presumably the ratifying vote would take place earlier that week. This could make for a very interesting Christmas politically, given that were the WA to be voted down on, say Monday 17 December, there'd just be time for a Vote of No Confidence in the government.

    Here, however, would be a bit of a loophole in the FTPA because how do you demonstrate confidence in the government if parliament is not sitting? Presumably, it would have to be recalled specifically for Confidence votes should another government be formed before the 14 days runs out shortly into the New Year. Given rail engineering works and the possibility of snow at that time of year, that could pose an interesting logistical issue for the whips, never mind the usual day job.

    More typical to May's style would be to defer the WA vote until after the recess. I cannot imagine that tactic being well received by critics.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
    What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
  • Only two out of my eight midterms spread bets still to be settled. This is progress.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,668
    kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    kjh said:

    Yes. I went to a Sec Mod in the 60s.

    I have no memory of taking the 11+ but I clearly failed impressively because I was streamed from it in the Sec Mod in a class where I was not expected to take any O Levels or CSEs. As a consequence I spent much of my time being taught Gardening, Metalwork and Woodwork and did not take any language nor English Literature.

    I assume I started to blossom as I went up a class and then in the exams we took to decide whether you took an O level or CSE in each subject I came top in the year in all subjects I took except English. I achieved the top grade in all O levels except English which I still passed.

    I transferred to the Grammar School. I together with 3 grammar school boys were identified to be fast tracked taking an A level after 1 year. I then went to Manchester University to study Mathematics.

    I saw many Secondary School pupils in the 5th year who would have flourished at the Grammar School, but the norm was just to leave after O levels and many Grammar School boys who left with only a few O levels. I am incompetent at practical stuff, but that is what I was taught. I am academic but missed on on languages (which I really regret) and literature. The Grammar school boys missed out on practical subjects.

    I also suffered discrimination from having the Secondary School on my CV, although I was proud to have it there e.g. Of the 4 fast tracked boys I was asked for higher A level grades for Uni places even if there wasn't an interview. The only distinguishing difference was the school.

    Rant over!

    A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.

    Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.
    +1 Do you get the feeling I have a chip on my shoulder :)
    It is not just that some are late developers (my brother was also very good at Maths, he specialises in econometrics) but less good at English, but also that all tests make Type 1 and Type 2 errors. On a board like this where statistical skill abounds, that should be obvious. I don't know of any study on these for the 11+.

    For the less statistically minded, this Tweet explains what I mean:

    https://twitter.com/JHowardBrainMD/status/1059952243913515009?s=19
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,400

    Foxy said:



    A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.

    Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.


    A bit like decisions over a country's place in international organisations?
    Ooohhhh... I like it, a sort of multiyear rolling Brexit referendum. That'd have loads of betting implications.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287

    Only two out of my eight midterms spread bets still to be settled. This is progress.

    MS and UT ?

    I have no idea what the holdup is on these, particularly MS.
  • Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
    How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
    I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
  • More typical to May's style would be to defer the WA vote until after the recess. I cannot imagine that tactic being well received by critics.
    Hasn't she rather made a habit of not caring what critics think?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,236
    TGOHF said:

    That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
    What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
    Chris Huhne and his wife got eight months. Her being a solicitor would likely be an aggravating factor though, if she were found guilty.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    matt said:

    While people watch, an interesting article in The Times suggesting that grammar schools are not exactly the prime movers for social mobility that evidence -free writers suggest. A flavour:

    Private schools often have more disadvantaged pupils in their classrooms than neighbouring state grammars because of fast-growing bursary programmes, according to leading heads in the independent sector.
    They say that at fee-paying schools, up to 20 per cent of pupils are on bursaries, the majority of which go to pupils who would qualify for free school meals, the benchmark for poverty.
    This compares with an average of only 3 per cent of children at grammar schools — which are funded by the taxpayer and select their intake — being entitled to free school meals.

    Do you have a link to that article?

    Grammar schools are the pineapple on pizza of education.
    Grammar schools are private schools in all but name - instead of paying fees, parents pay a fortune to tutors to pre-train their sprogs to pass the 11+
    Not in the case of my two who both went into Grammar school without tuition.
    My wife and I went to grammar schools and were selected without having to be tutored.

    Similarly our two children went to grammar school without being tutored, although you need to live in the right county nowadays. My old grammar school is in a non grammar county and became a private school.
    Is there any regular PBer who went to a Secondary Modern?

    There are a fair number from private schools, some from state grammars and some comprehensives, like myself.

    Writing off the majority of 11 year olds for academic study is just wrong. It is far too early for selection.

    Not a PBer, but my other half's father went to a secondary modern and ended up as a toxicology lecturer.
    In the 1960's in my area only 7% of us went to grammar school so that left plenty of scope amongst the 93% for some excellent academic talent to emerge. A few transferred to grammar school at 13 and 16 years of age.

    Some areas now select 25% of pupils for the grammar school leaving less potential for star academic talent to emerge from the remaining 75%.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,295
    edited November 2018
    TGOHF said:

    That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
    What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
    Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.

    But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
  • Alistair said:



    I am just looking at the studies done on this. If you don't agree then argue with the Sutton Trust. After all their whole raison d'etre is improving social mobility in education.

    This Sutton Trust? https://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/grammar-schools-widen-gap-rich-poor/

    https://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/grammar-schools-are-no-better-for-bright-pupils-say-researchers/
    https://www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/evidence-effects-selective-educational-systems/

    Clearly states in the conclusions that Grammar schools improve the grades of those attending without any adverse effect on non selective schools in the catchment area.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,400

    Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
    How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
    I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
    It's also worth remembering that almost nothing of this deal will still be in place in 25 years time. The Swiss have had 210 (yes, really) different treaties with the EU since 1970, of which only 28-30 are still in force.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The only argument against grammar schools is: "If everyone cannot have something, no-one should be able to have it".
  • All last week, May's dodgy deal apologists on here and elsewhere were telling us the deal was done, no further negotiations were possible.

    It's good to have some confirmation that you were all, as usual, totally full of shit.

    It seems the deal is very much still being negotiated. Unless you're British of course. Then "the deal is done".

    Where is your evidence that this deal is still being negotiated? All you have is countries moaning they don't like it. I have not heard that the EU has decided to open negotiations again because of that.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,000
    Pulpstar said:

    Only two out of my eight midterms spread bets still to be settled. This is progress.

    MS and UT ?

    I have no idea what the holdup is on these, particularly MS.
    Is Mississippi not going to a run-off?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Only two out of my eight midterms spread bets still to be settled. This is progress.

    MS and UT ?

    I have no idea what the holdup is on these, particularly MS.
    Yeah, turnout in both cases. Two out my four bets on the vote supremacy (Delaware and Utah) were settled at almost exactly my starting price, so neutral. My hunch that Kirsten Gillibrand would do especially well in NY came out well (bought at 27.8, settled at 31.9), but that was partially offset by Rhode Island going the other way. My bet on turnout in TX was slightly in profit, and in Tennessee well in profit. So, overall, positive so far, just waiting for the last two!
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
    What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
    Chris Huhne and his wife got eight months. Her being a solicitor would likely be an aggravating factor though, if she were found guilty.
    Isabel Oakeshott gave his wife advice I believe.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,400
    TGOHF said:

    That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
    What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
    I think a theoretical person would be unlikely to be punished. An actual person, on the other hand would probably go to prison.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Only two out of my eight midterms spread bets still to be settled. This is progress.

    MS and UT ?

    I have no idea what the holdup is on these, particularly MS.
    Is Mississippi not going to a run-off?
    That's the special election, this was a bet on the other seat.
  • kjh said:

    Foxy said:

    kjh said:

    Yes. I went to a Sec Mod in the 60s.

    I have no memory of taking the 11+ but I clearly failed impressively because I was streamed from it in the Sec Mod in a class where I was not expected to take any O Levels or CSEs. As a consequence I spent much of my time being taught Gardening, Metalwork and Woodwork and did not take any language nor English Literature.

    I assume I started to blossom as I went up a class and then in the exams we took to decide whether you took an O level or CSE in each subject I came top in the year in all subjects I took except English. I achieved the top grade in all O levels except English which I still passed.

    I transferred to the Grammar School. I together with 3 grammar school boys were identified to be fast tracked taking an A level after 1 year. I then went to Manchester University to study Mathematics.

    I saw many Secondary School pupils in the 5th year who would have flourished at the Grammar School, but the norm was just to leave after O levels and many Grammar School boys who left with only a few O levels. I am incompetent at practical stuff, but that is what I was taught. I am academic but missed on on languages (which I really regret) and literature. The Grammar school boys missed out on practical subjects.

    I also suffered discrimination from having the Secondary School on my CV, although I was proud to have it there e.g. Of the 4 fast tracked boys I was asked for higher A level grades for Uni places even if there wasn't an interview. The only distinguishing difference was the school.

    Rant over!

    A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.

    Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.
    +1 Do you get the feeling I have a chip on my shoulder :)
    +2

    Not all kids even get the chance; in Kent only about half even sit the test.

    As the test is taken in mid-September of Year 6 so 95% of those taking it are 10 years old not 11.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,000

    TGOHF said:

    That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
    What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
    Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.

    But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
    Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287

    Pulpstar said:

    Only two out of my eight midterms spread bets still to be settled. This is progress.

    MS and UT ?

    I have no idea what the holdup is on these, particularly MS.
    Is Mississippi not going to a run-off?
    Wicker - Baria ain't
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
    How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
    I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
    It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
  • TGOHF said:

    That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
    What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
    Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.

    But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
    Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
    I think life sentence is designed for those that engage in witness intimidation


  • That is a posting based almost entirely on a biased and very partial view.

    If you are in a county with Grammar schools like Lincolnshire then every child who is considered suitable by the Junior school for entry is tutored by that school on the basics of the 11+. There is no additional tutoring necessary.

    And as I have already pointed out, the studies show that there is no drop in standards at the non selective schools who are in Grammar catchment areas.

    Grammar schools undoubtedly promote social mobility.


    I'm not a fan, but I'm happy to concede that's based mainly on my own anecdotal experience (as a pupil and parent) of great comprehensives with highly-effective streaming which gave me a bunch of good A levels and have already sent my eldest to Oxford. Had any of mine been deemed sec mod candidates at 11, I'm pretty sure I'd have felt it very early to have judged them.

    One practical concern - in a rural area where secondary schools are thin on the ground (maybe 15+ miles apart), is it really practical for the local one to go one way or the other and leave one "stream" of kids a couple of hours a day on a bus?
    Lincolnshire is pretty rural but has both Grammars and non selectives in most of the major towns. There is perhaps a lack of Grammars in some areas but not of non selectives.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,000

    Pulpstar said:

    Only two out of my eight midterms spread bets still to be settled. This is progress.

    MS and UT ?

    I have no idea what the holdup is on these, particularly MS.
    Is Mississippi not going to a run-off?
    That's the special election, this was a bet on the other seat.
    Ah right, sorry.
  • TGOHF said:

    That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
    If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.

    She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
    What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
    Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.

    But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
    Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
    It's not the "traffic offence" it's "perverting the course of justice" the Courts get appropriately draconian about.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    kjh said:

    Yes. I went to a Sec Mod in the 60s.

    I have no memory of taking the 11+ but I clearly failed impressively because I was streamed from it in the Sec Mod in a class where I was not expected to take any O Levels or CSEs. As a consequence I spent much of my time being taught Gardening, Metalwork and Woodwork and did not take any language nor English Literature.

    I assume I started to blossom as I went up a class and then in the exams we took to decide whether you took an O level or CSE in each subject I came top in the year in all subjects I took except English. I achieved the top grade in all O levels except English which I still passed.

    I transferred to the Grammar School. I together with 3 grammar school boys were identified to be fast tracked taking an A level after 1 year. I then went to Manchester University to study Mathematics.

    I saw many Secondary School pupils in the 5th year who would have flourished at the Grammar School, but the norm was just to leave after O levels and many Grammar School boys who left with only a few O levels. I am incompetent at practical stuff, but that is what I was taught. I am academic but missed on on languages (which I really regret) and literature. The Grammar school boys missed out on practical subjects.

    I also suffered discrimination from having the Secondary School on my CV, although I was proud to have it there e.g. Of the 4 fast tracked boys I was asked for higher A level grades for Uni places even if there wasn't an interview. The only distinguishing difference was the school.

    Rant over!

    A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.

    Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.
    As an August child, I was also shocked to discover that (had I taken the 11 plus), I would have been only half as likely to pass as someone born in September. Given the life changing consequences of the 11 plus, a single exam - based on one day in your tenth year on planet earth - seems a little too random for me.

    (Disclaimer: my daughter is about to take the US version of the 11 plus in - oohhh - ten days time. We just discovered she's probably the only kid in her class not being tutored, so I've been doing a bit of exam familiarisation with her.)
    My son is in his fist year at Grammar School. He was an August child but managed to pass the 11+
This discussion has been closed.