The economy and inflation dominate the latest Ipsos Issues Index – politicalbetting.com

Off topic, but timely:

Today, I’ll be celebrating this centennial:

"This year, the headquarters of Team Peanuts in Santa Rosa, Calif., has another reason to hold gatherings at its museum and library and ceremonies at its ice rink: It’s the centennial of the birth of “Peanuts” creator Charles M. “Sparky” Schulz, who was born Nov. 26, 1922, and raised in St. Paul, Minn."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/comics/2022/11/23/charles-schulz-peanuts-100-birthday/

Among others, Schulz inspired late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, figure skater Scott Hamilton, and astronaut Mike Massimino.

(Today, many cartoonists are joining in the celebration.)

(Cross posted at Patterico's Pontifications.)

Brandy. Pub. 3pm on Saturday.

Don't judge me.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

turbotubbs said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

How many parents are able to see the problems with their child's school as easily as patients can see the healthcare system struggling?

I'm guessing the answer is 'not nearly as many,' if only because education is actually quite a gradual process while ambulances stacked outside A+E are an immediate emergency.

I suspect it will change when schools have to start closing.

I've been surprised by my peer cohort.

Basically, over half who can afford it are going private - several quite liberal-lefty parents who keep it all very hush hush, but they tell me.

This isn't open to everyone but quite a significant number are doing it, IMHO. It's a vector for stopping Starmer getting votes in quite a few SE marginals if he persists on a manifesto of VAT on private school fees.

Ah yes, the dishonesty of the wealthy leftie. Diane Abbots kids need private schooling etc. Some things never change. How do they live with themselves during their long Tuscan holidays?

One does ones best for the oiks but one must never send ones children to mix with their children or who knows what they might pick up?

The hypocrisy is a bit nauseating. As a leftie I would never send my kids to a private school, I just don't think it's right. Although when I look at their overworked teachers and worn out facilities I do worry sometimes that I'm not doing the right thing for them. I would never criticise any parent's choice of school because ultimately our first responsibility is to our children. We all do what we think is best according to our values and circumstances. But I do think it's a poor reflection on us as a country that we can't organise a well funded, high quality public education system that every parent has confidence in. I also suspect the educational divide that we end up with as a result is ultimately impoverishing us all.

You're ahead of me then. I don't suspect, I know it.

Well yes. I think we all do.

Nonsense. Private schools are a net benefit to society, and sending your children to them is the ethical thing to do, if you can afford it, not the reverse.

It's not about private schools, ultimately. One reason I think it's dumb to talk about tax structures and benefits and facilities and so on is it's a complete red herring.

The reason we have private schools is because our state system doesn't deliver the goods to the standard pushy parents want. If it did, they would not exist or at least, only in small numbers.

So what are the issues? Class sizes that are much too large is certainly one problem. A school day and term system that is not properly thought out and seems to be more about childcare than about the optimum system for education is a a second. A curriculum and assessment process that is designed around the prejudices of rather dim civil servants than a realistic appraisal of what would actually serve the children, our society and our economy well is a third. A tendency to micromanage by people who are so fucking clueless they seem to have spent most of lockdown having boozy parties and issuing three sets of HSE guidance a day while coming up with arbitrary dates on opening and closing schools is definitely a fourth.

But unfortunately, the biggest vested interest of the lot in education is the DfE and the civil service. And the system is entirely designed to suit them and unless they are all sent to a metaphorical Siberia there is no chance of it changing.

The problem as I see it is that the existence of private schools severely diminishes the incentives to fix the state school system. If most of the richest and most politically connected people in the country as well as many of the people who care most about their children's schooling don't use the state system it will never get the attention it needs. It has become a poor system for poor people.

Remember when @Charles was particularly disgruntled about his children's schooling. The time from his first comment on PB to inspection by the 'elite' OFSTED team was about 2 months.

Casino_Royale said:

Brandy. Pub. 3pm on Saturday.

Don't judge me.

I do judge you - it should be Scotch.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

turbotubbs said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

How many parents are able to see the problems with their child's school as easily as patients can see the healthcare system struggling?

I'm guessing the answer is 'not nearly as many,' if only because education is actually quite a gradual process while ambulances stacked outside A+E are an immediate emergency.

I suspect it will change when schools have to start closing.

I've been surprised by my peer cohort.

Basically, over half who can afford it are going private - several quite liberal-lefty parents who keep it all very hush hush, but they tell me.

This isn't open to everyone but quite a significant number are doing it, IMHO. It's a vector for stopping Starmer getting votes in quite a few SE marginals if he persists on a manifesto of VAT on private school fees.

Ah yes, the dishonesty of the wealthy leftie. Diane Abbots kids need private schooling etc. Some things never change. How do they live with themselves during their long Tuscan holidays?

One does ones best for the oiks but one must never send ones children to mix with their children or who knows what they might pick up?

The hypocrisy is a bit nauseating. As a leftie I would never send my kids to a private school, I just don't think it's right. Although when I look at their overworked teachers and worn out facilities I do worry sometimes that I'm not doing the right thing for them. I would never criticise any parent's choice of school because ultimately our first responsibility is to our children. We all do what we think is best according to our values and circumstances. But I do think it's a poor reflection on us as a country that we can't organise a well funded, high quality public education system that every parent has confidence in. I also suspect the educational divide that we end up with as a result is ultimately impoverishing us all.

My daughter's best friend at primary school was yanked out of the best state primary in the small city we lived in at the time to go private, because she was allowed to coast by the teachers who were concentrating on those children who were struggling most. Her parents were impeccably anti-Tory and I did wonder about their choice at the time.

In the end though what bothered me most about their decision wasn't hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty, but that my daughter lost daily contact with her best friend, and I didn't have the finances to make the same choice.

I want all children to have a private school quality education. Arguing that people should choose a lower standard of education for their child as an ideological purity test is an odd way to agitate for such an outcome.

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

Such as? (And don't quote Cummings as a source, please. He makes David Irving look honest.)

I agree with you to an extent about the anti-elitism, but that actually comes more from the civil service and the managers than from ordinary teachers. We respect bright people.

As for the lowest common denominator, again that is a function of the National Curriculum and - ironically - the grammar schools for all process, which was a civil service invention under first Wilson, carried on through Callaghan and then finally came to fruition under Thatcher.

I think it's easier to blame teachers than ask the really difficult question - if it's their fault, why have people ostensibly in power for so many years let them get away with it?

Because they had power. Because they should be listened to as the people delivering the education at the sharp end but when they were given that power and listened to they misused that power for ideological ends (note, as I said in my previous comment I am referring to teaching organisations rather than individual teachers).

If this is all the fault of Cummings and Gove then why did the UK PISA rankings drop from 7th in the world in 2000 to 26th in the world in 2009? At a time when Labour were supposedly spending lots more money on education? Our rankings had actually improved substantially between 2015 and 2018 - a time when teachers were decrying all the curriculum changes that were taking place.

Education is a mess and that is the fault of decades of anti-elitism and ideology. But teaching organisations bear a great deal of responsibility for that alongside the civil servants and politicians.

Read my previous comment. I didn't blame Cummings and Gove. I said they accelerated it. The big problem with the two of them is they did exactly what the DfE wanted while being fooled into thinking they were doing the opposite. Our rankings, in any case, are more about priorities. Cummings and Gove buggered every other subject for a short term gain in maths, essentially. It didn't last and because they didn't understand what they were doing or address the fundamentals it was never going to.

As for your last comment, that's pure prejudice. It's like saying the current state of the oil industry is because the HSE prizes lives over accidents. The reason it is a mess, ironically, is precisely because of that sort of attitude.

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

turbotubbs said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

How many parents are able to see the problems with their child's school as easily as patients can see the healthcare system struggling?

I'm guessing the answer is 'not nearly as many,' if only because education is actually quite a gradual process while ambulances stacked outside A+E are an immediate emergency.

I suspect it will change when schools have to start closing.

I've been surprised by my peer cohort.

Basically, over half who can afford it are going private - several quite liberal-lefty parents who keep it all very hush hush, but they tell me.

This isn't open to everyone but quite a significant number are doing it, IMHO. It's a vector for stopping Starmer getting votes in quite a few SE marginals if he persists on a manifesto of VAT on private school fees.

Ah yes, the dishonesty of the wealthy leftie. Diane Abbots kids need private schooling etc. Some things never change. How do they live with themselves during their long Tuscan holidays?

One does ones best for the oiks but one must never send ones children to mix with their children or who knows what they might pick up?

The hypocrisy is a bit nauseating. As a leftie I would never send my kids to a private school, I just don't think it's right. Although when I look at their overworked teachers and worn out facilities I do worry sometimes that I'm not doing the right thing for them. I would never criticise any parent's choice of school because ultimately our first responsibility is to our children. We all do what we think is best according to our values and circumstances. But I do think it's a poor reflection on us as a country that we can't organise a well funded, high quality public education system that every parent has confidence in. I also suspect the educational divide that we end up with as a result is ultimately impoverishing us all.

My daughter's best friend at primary school was yanked out of the best state primary in the small city we lived in at the time to go private, because she was allowed to coast by the teachers who were concentrating on those children who were struggling most. Her parents were impeccably anti-Tory and I did wonder about their choice at the time.

In the end though what bothered me most about their decision wasn't hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty, but that my daughter lost daily contact with her best friend, and I didn't have the finances to make the same choice.

I want all children to have a private school quality education. Arguing that people should choose a lower standard of education for their child as an ideological purity test is an odd way to agitate for such an outcome.

No I would never criticise any parent for making what they see as the right choice for their child. As parents it's what we all try to do. I do think it is hypocritical to send your own child to a school that spends £15k per pupil per year and then vote for a party that won't increase spending in the state system when it's only £8k, say.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

turbotubbs said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

How many parents are able to see the problems with their child's school as easily as patients can see the healthcare system struggling?

I'm guessing the answer is 'not nearly as many,' if only because education is actually quite a gradual process while ambulances stacked outside A+E are an immediate emergency.

I suspect it will change when schools have to start closing.

I've been surprised by my peer cohort.

Basically, over half who can afford it are going private - several quite liberal-lefty parents who keep it all very hush hush, but they tell me.

This isn't open to everyone but quite a significant number are doing it, IMHO. It's a vector for stopping Starmer getting votes in quite a few SE marginals if he persists on a manifesto of VAT on private school fees.

Ah yes, the dishonesty of the wealthy leftie. Diane Abbots kids need private schooling etc. Some things never change. How do they live with themselves during their long Tuscan holidays?

One does ones best for the oiks but one must never send ones children to mix with their children or who knows what they might pick up?

The hypocrisy is a bit nauseating. As a leftie I would never send my kids to a private school, I just don't think it's right. Although when I look at their overworked teachers and worn out facilities I do worry sometimes that I'm not doing the right thing for them. I would never criticise any parent's choice of school because ultimately our first responsibility is to our children. We all do what we think is best according to our values and circumstances. But I do think it's a poor reflection on us as a country that we can't organise a well funded, high quality public education system that every parent has confidence in. I also suspect the educational divide that we end up with as a result is ultimately impoverishing us all.

You're ahead of me then. I don't suspect, I know it.

Well yes. I think we all do.

Nonsense. Private schools are a net benefit to society, and sending your children to them is the ethical thing to do, if you can afford it, not the reverse.

It's not about private schools, ultimately. One reason I think it's dumb to talk about tax structures and benefits and facilities and so on is it's a complete red herring.

The reason we have private schools is because our state system doesn't deliver the goods to the standard pushy parents want. If it did, they would not exist or at least, only in small numbers.

So what are the issues? Class sizes that are much too large is certainly one problem. A school day and term system that is not properly thought out and seems to be more about childcare than about the optimum system for education is a a second. A curriculum and assessment process that is designed around the prejudices of rather dim civil servants than a realistic appraisal of what would actually serve the children, our society and our economy well is a third. A tendency to micromanage by people who are so fucking clueless they seem to have spent most of lockdown having boozy parties and issuing three sets of HSE guidance a day while coming up with arbitrary dates on opening and closing schools is definitely a fourth.

But unfortunately, the biggest vested interest of the lot in education is the DfE and the civil service. And the system is entirely designed to suit them and unless they are all sent to a metaphorical Siberia there is no chance of it changing.

The problem as I see it is that the existence of private schools severely diminishes the incentives to fix the state school system. If most of the richest and most politically connected people in the country as well as many of the people who care most about their children's schooling don't use the state system it will never get the attention it needs. It has become a poor system for poor people.

No, as if private schools were abolished the richest and most connected would send their children to only the outstanding state schools in wealthy suburbs or go to church more often to get their children into a top faith school or move to an area with grammar schools.

The idea they would send their children to a state school rated requires improvement or inadequate or even just good is laughable!

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

turbotubbs said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

How many parents are able to see the problems with their child's school as easily as patients can see the healthcare system struggling?

I'm guessing the answer is 'not nearly as many,' if only because education is actually quite a gradual process while ambulances stacked outside A+E are an immediate emergency.

I suspect it will change when schools have to start closing.

I've been surprised by my peer cohort.

Basically, over half who can afford it are going private - several quite liberal-lefty parents who keep it all very hush hush, but they tell me.

This isn't open to everyone but quite a significant number are doing it, IMHO. It's a vector for stopping Starmer getting votes in quite a few SE marginals if he persists on a manifesto of VAT on private school fees.

Ah yes, the dishonesty of the wealthy leftie. Diane Abbots kids need private schooling etc. Some things never change. How do they live with themselves during their long Tuscan holidays?

One does ones best for the oiks but one must never send ones children to mix with their children or who knows what they might pick up?

The hypocrisy is a bit nauseating. As a leftie I would never send my kids to a private school, I just don't think it's right. Although when I look at their overworked teachers and worn out facilities I do worry sometimes that I'm not doing the right thing for them. I would never criticise any parent's choice of school because ultimately our first responsibility is to our children. We all do what we think is best according to our values and circumstances. But I do think it's a poor reflection on us as a country that we can't organise a well funded, high quality public education system that every parent has confidence in. I also suspect the educational divide that we end up with as a result is ultimately impoverishing us all.

My daughter's best friend at primary school was yanked out of the best state primary in the small city we lived in at the time to go private, because she was allowed to coast by the teachers who were concentrating on those children who were struggling most. Her parents were impeccably anti-Tory and I did wonder about their choice at the time.

In the end though what bothered me most about their decision wasn't hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty, but that my daughter lost daily contact with her best friend, and I didn't have the finances to make the same choice.

I want all children to have a private school quality education. Arguing that people should choose a lower standard of education for their child as an ideological purity test is an odd way to agitate for such an outcome.

No I would never criticise any parent for making what they see as the right choice for their child. As parents it's what we all try to do. I do think it is hypocritical to send your own child to a school that spends £15k per pupil per year and then vote for a party that won't increase spending in the state system when it's only £8k, say.

Right, so, politically, the issue of private education for politician's children should be more difficult for a right-winger tax-cutter and education budget slasher, than for a left-winger who wants to increase taxes to pay for smaller class sizes in state schools. And yet, somehow, it's always left-wing politicians who get it in the neck for such choices. Another piece of evidence of how crap the Left are at politics in Britain?

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

turbotubbs said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

How many parents are able to see the problems with their child's school as easily as patients can see the healthcare system struggling?

I'm guessing the answer is 'not nearly as many,' if only because education is actually quite a gradual process while ambulances stacked outside A+E are an immediate emergency.

I suspect it will change when schools have to start closing.

I've been surprised by my peer cohort.

Basically, over half who can afford it are going private - several quite liberal-lefty parents who keep it all very hush hush, but they tell me.

This isn't open to everyone but quite a significant number are doing it, IMHO. It's a vector for stopping Starmer getting votes in quite a few SE marginals if he persists on a manifesto of VAT on private school fees.

Ah yes, the dishonesty of the wealthy leftie. Diane Abbots kids need private schooling etc. Some things never change. How do they live with themselves during their long Tuscan holidays?

One does ones best for the oiks but one must never send ones children to mix with their children or who knows what they might pick up?

The hypocrisy is a bit nauseating. As a leftie I would never send my kids to a private school, I just don't think it's right. Although when I look at their overworked teachers and worn out facilities I do worry sometimes that I'm not doing the right thing for them. I would never criticise any parent's choice of school because ultimately our first responsibility is to our children. We all do what we think is best according to our values and circumstances. But I do think it's a poor reflection on us as a country that we can't organise a well funded, high quality public education system that every parent has confidence in. I also suspect the educational divide that we end up with as a result is ultimately impoverishing us all.

My daughter's best friend at primary school was yanked out of the best state primary in the small city we lived in at the time to go private, because she was allowed to coast by the teachers who were concentrating on those children who were struggling most. Her parents were impeccably anti-Tory and I did wonder about their choice at the time.

In the end though what bothered me most about their decision wasn't hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty, but that my daughter lost daily contact with her best friend, and I didn't have the finances to make the same choice.

I want all children to have a private school quality education. Arguing that people should choose a lower standard of education for their child as an ideological purity test is an odd way to agitate for such an outcome.

No I would never criticise any parent for making what they see as the right choice for their child. As parents it's what we all try to do. I do think it is hypocritical to send your own child to a school that spends £15k per pupil per year and then vote for a party that won't increase spending in the state system when it's only £8k, say.

Right, so, politically, the issue of private education for politician's children should be more difficult for a right-winger tax-cutter and education budget slasher, than for a left-winger who wants to increase taxes to pay for smaller class sizes in state schools. And yet, somehow, it's always left-wing politicians who get it in the neck for such choices. Another piece of evidence of how crap the Left are at politics in Britain?

It's one of those examples where the obvious answer is wrong but the correct answer requires some explanation and thought. And in politics, if you're explaining you're losing.

WRT private schools, why bother? If you’ve got the money to pay £20,000 pa in fees, you’ve got the money to move to wherever the State schools are good.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

turbotubbs said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

How many parents are able to see the problems with their child's school as easily as patients can see the healthcare system struggling?

I'm guessing the answer is 'not nearly as many,' if only because education is actually quite a gradual process while ambulances stacked outside A+E are an immediate emergency.

I suspect it will change when schools have to start closing.

I've been surprised by my peer cohort.

Basically, over half who can afford it are going private - several quite liberal-lefty parents who keep it all very hush hush, but they tell me.

This isn't open to everyone but quite a significant number are doing it, IMHO. It's a vector for stopping Starmer getting votes in quite a few SE marginals if he persists on a manifesto of VAT on private school fees.

Ah yes, the dishonesty of the wealthy leftie. Diane Abbots kids need private schooling etc. Some things never change. How do they live with themselves during their long Tuscan holidays?

One does ones best for the oiks but one must never send ones children to mix with their children or who knows what they might pick up?

The hypocrisy is a bit nauseating. As a leftie I would never send my kids to a private school, I just don't think it's right. Although when I look at their overworked teachers and worn out facilities I do worry sometimes that I'm not doing the right thing for them. I would never criticise any parent's choice of school because ultimately our first responsibility is to our children. We all do what we think is best according to our values and circumstances. But I do think it's a poor reflection on us as a country that we can't organise a well funded, high quality public education system that every parent has confidence in. I also suspect the educational divide that we end up with as a result is ultimately impoverishing us all.

You're ahead of me then. I don't suspect, I know it.

Well yes. I think we all do.

Nonsense. Private schools are a net benefit to society, and sending your children to them is the ethical thing to do, if you can afford it, not the reverse.

It's not about private schools, ultimately. One reason I think it's dumb to talk about tax structures and benefits and facilities and so on is it's a complete red herring.

The reason we have private schools is because our state system doesn't deliver the goods to the standard pushy parents want. If it did, they would not exist or at least, only in small numbers.

So what are the issues? Class sizes that are much too large is certainly one problem. A school day and term system that is not properly thought out and seems to be more about childcare than about the optimum system for education is a a second. A curriculum and assessment process that is designed around the prejudices of rather dim civil servants than a realistic appraisal of what would actually serve the children, our society and our economy well is a third. A tendency to micromanage by people who are so fucking clueless they seem to have spent most of lockdown having boozy parties and issuing three sets of HSE guidance a day while coming up with arbitrary dates on opening and closing schools is definitely a fourth.

But unfortunately, the biggest vested interest of the lot in education is the DfE and the civil service. And the system is entirely designed to suit them and unless they are all sent to a metaphorical Siberia there is no chance of it changing.

The problem as I see it is that the existence of private schools severely diminishes the incentives to fix the state school system. If most of the richest and most politically connected people in the country as well as many of the people who care most about their children's schooling don't use the state system it will never get the attention it needs. It has become a poor system for poor people.

No, as if private schools were abolished the richest and most connected would send their children to only the outstanding state schools in wealthy suburbs or go to church more often to get their children into a top faith school or move to an area with grammar schools.

The idea they would send their children to a state school rated requires improvement or inadequate or even just good is laughable!

All state schools get the same funding though (give or take). So at least they would be lobbying for more resources for the whole system.
In any case, very few schools are rated outstanding, and often the ranking changes from one inspection to the next, so a strategy of only sending your kids to outstanding rated schools isn't very sensible. "Good" schools are, unsurprisingly, good.

No they wouldn't, they already pay taxes for state schools, they will do PTA fundraising for their childrens' outstanding state school. They will not care much at all if the poor state school down the road is under funded.

More state schools are rated outstanding than the 7% of parents who go private, so private school parents could all hog most of the outstanding state school places.

Many with children at outstanding state schools would then be forced out to only state schools rated good

..

HYUFD said:

Starmer tells the Mail on Sunday a Swiss style deal wouldn't work for him because if free movement which is a red line for him

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1596521875575689216?s=20&t=6mJlXWBaBf8KSKu339zm2g

I'm enjoying this turn from Starmer. I suspect he'll soon be telling Braverman to 'get a grip' on the migrant crisis. He really really really wants that red wall back.

Luckyguy1983 said:

..

HYUFD said:

Starmer tells the Mail on Sunday a Swiss style deal wouldn't work for him because if free movement which is a red line for him

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1596521875575689216?s=20&t=6mJlXWBaBf8KSKu339zm2g

I'm enjoying this turn from Starmer. I suspect he'll soon be telling Braverman to 'get a grip' on the migrant crisis. He really really really wants that red wall back.

He's being advised by New Labour grandees who wrote the book on using populist rhetoric to disguise their intentions.

pillsbury said:

Sean_F said:

WRT private schools, why bother? If you’ve got the money to pay £20,000 pa in fees, you’ve got the money to move to wherever the State schools are good.

Because you like living, or have to live, where you do

Because private schools offer a huge amount more than even very good state schools

Social cachet

"social cachet" 😂

Casino_Royale said:

BRANDY

Have you tried it with ginger ale?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

As somebody who worked in 14-19 education throughout my career, I've two objections to your comment:

1. Anti-elitism doesn't "infect every corner of the teaching profession". Far from it. Most state school and college teachers, to give one example, are immensely proud when they get kids into Oxbridge and other 'elite' HE institutions. Many are, however, against privilege by accident of birth.

2. For 40 years, you say, our education sector has been based on "the principle of equality through lowest common denominator". That's also inaccurate. If you'd written "equality of opportunity" then you may have a point. But equality? That's for the birds; there's no notion of equality underpinning any of our education or examination system. Equality of opportunity, however, seems a noble cause.

And yet it is that 'for the birds' policy that the teaching organisations have pursued in defence of their ideology. Just go and look at the stated policy of the NEU right now - they are opposed to streaming and setting because "Setting and streaming can exacerbate inequalities and hold back disadvantaged pupils."

1. The NEU doesn't necessarily reflect what teachers do or think.

2. Actually, the NEU is right in saying that 'setting and streaming can ...... hold back disadvantaged pupils'. This was more commonplace some years ago, when the 'bottom' sets/streams were frequently allocated all the worst teachers, with predictable, self-fulfilling consequences.

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

turbotubbs said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

How many parents are able to see the problems with their child's school as easily as patients can see the healthcare system struggling?

I'm guessing the answer is 'not nearly as many,' if only because education is actually quite a gradual process while ambulances stacked outside A+E are an immediate emergency.

I suspect it will change when schools have to start closing.

I've been surprised by my peer cohort.

Basically, over half who can afford it are going private - several quite liberal-lefty parents who keep it all very hush hush, but they tell me.

This isn't open to everyone but quite a significant number are doing it, IMHO. It's a vector for stopping Starmer getting votes in quite a few SE marginals if he persists on a manifesto of VAT on private school fees.

Ah yes, the dishonesty of the wealthy leftie. Diane Abbots kids need private schooling etc. Some things never change. How do they live with themselves during their long Tuscan holidays?

One does ones best for the oiks but one must never send ones children to mix with their children or who knows what they might pick up?

The hypocrisy is a bit nauseating. As a leftie I would never send my kids to a private school, I just don't think it's right. Although when I look at their overworked teachers and worn out facilities I do worry sometimes that I'm not doing the right thing for them. I would never criticise any parent's choice of school because ultimately our first responsibility is to our children. We all do what we think is best according to our values and circumstances. But I do think it's a poor reflection on us as a country that we can't organise a well funded, high quality public education system that every parent has confidence in. I also suspect the educational divide that we end up with as a result is ultimately impoverishing us all.

You're ahead of me then. I don't suspect, I know it.

Well yes. I think we all do.

Nonsense. Private schools are a net benefit to society, and sending your children to them is the ethical thing to do, if you can afford it, not the reverse.

It's not about private schools, ultimately. One reason I think it's dumb to talk about tax structures and benefits and facilities and so on is it's a complete red herring.

The reason we have private schools is because our state system doesn't deliver the goods to the standard pushy parents want. If it did, they would not exist or at least, only in small numbers.

So what are the issues? Class sizes that are much too large is certainly one problem. A school day and term system that is not properly thought out and seems to be more about childcare than about the optimum system for education is a a second. A curriculum and assessment process that is designed around the prejudices of rather dim civil servants than a realistic appraisal of what would actually serve the children, our society and our economy well is a third. A tendency to micromanage by people who are so fucking clueless they seem to have spent most of lockdown having boozy parties and issuing three sets of HSE guidance a day while coming up with arbitrary dates on opening and closing schools is definitely a fourth.

But unfortunately, the biggest vested interest of the lot in education is the DfE and the civil service. And the system is entirely designed to suit them and unless they are all sent to a metaphorical Siberia there is no chance of it changing.

The problem as I see it is that the existence of private schools severely diminishes the incentives to fix the state school system. If most of the richest and most politically connected people in the country as well as many of the people who care most about their children's schooling don't use the state system it will never get the attention it needs. It has become a poor system for poor people.

No, as if private schools were abolished the richest and most connected would send their children to only the outstanding state schools in wealthy suburbs or go to church more often to get their children into a top faith school or move to an area with grammar schools.

The idea they would send their children to a state school rated requires improvement or inadequate or even just good is laughable!

All state schools get the same funding though (give or take). So at least they would be lobbying for more resources for the whole system.
In any case, very few schools are rated outstanding, and often the ranking changes from one inspection to the next, so a strategy of only sending your kids to outstanding rated schools isn't very sensible. "Good" schools are, unsurprisingly, good.

No they wouldn't, they already pay taxes for state schools, they will do PTA fundraising for their childrens' outstanding state school. They will not care much at all if the poor state school down the road is under funded.

More state schools are rated outstanding than the 7% of parents who go private, so private school parents could all hog most of the outstanding state school places.

Many with children at outstanding state schools would then be forced out to only state schools rated good

That's not how PTA funding is spent. It goes on enrichment, the nice-to-haves, not core stuff like staff.

Partly because it would be almost impossible for a PTA to raise a game-changing amount. £100 per pupil per year (which would be very good going) would be about 2 percent of core finding.

But hey, I've just been a teacher and a governor, what do I know?

Yes and those extra add ons for their kids outstanding school are what the middle class parents will fundraise for.

They are never going to fundraise or lobby hard for more funds for the requires improvement or inadequate school for oiks down the road they would never send their children too

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

pillsbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

pillsbury said:

Sean_F said:

WRT private schools, why bother? If you’ve got the money to pay £20,000 pa in fees, you’ve got the money to move to wherever the State schools are good.

Because you like living, or have to live, where you do

Because private schools offer a huge amount more than even very good state schools

Social cachet

"social cachet" 😂

Um, yes? You may not have noticed, but every single aspect of UK life is driven by class, this one more than any other. I am not saying this is a good thing, I was answering, as best I could, a question in the post I was replying to. So why the emo thingy, other than its obvious value as shorthand for "I am an absolute and utter wanker"?

No need to be so touchy! I just think it's a slightly odd phrase to use in this day and age. Maybe you're right, but what a sad reflection on us as a country if you are.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

So which is the better school, the one where students progress much better than their peers or the one where they do just about as well as their peers?

It's incredible the question even needs asking.

One persists.

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

So which is the better school, the one where students progress much better than their peers or the one where they do just about as well as their peers?

The latter overall if they get better exam results and higher percentage into top universities.

A school might have better value added but still be worse overall in terms of exam results than the latter.

Just because an Olympic athlete improves from going out in the first round to a silver medallist, an athlete who won the gold on both occasions is still better

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

As somebody who worked in 14-19 education throughout my career, I've two objections to your comment:

1. Anti-elitism doesn't "infect every corner of the teaching profession". Far from it. Most state school and college teachers, to give one example, are immensely proud when they get kids into Oxbridge and other 'elite' HE institutions. Many are, however, against privilege by accident of birth.

2. For 40 years, you say, our education sector has been based on "the principle of equality through lowest common denominator". That's also inaccurate. If you'd written "equality of opportunity" then you may have a point. But equality? That's for the birds; there's no notion of equality underpinning any of our education or examination system. Equality of opportunity, however, seems a noble cause.

And yet it is that 'for the birds' policy that the teaching organisations have pursued in defence of their ideology. Just go and look at the stated policy of the NEU right now - they are opposed to streaming and setting because "Setting and streaming can exacerbate inequalities and hold back disadvantaged pupils."

1. The NEU doesn't necessarily reflect what teachers do or think.

2. Actually, the NEU is right in saying that 'setting and streaming can ...... hold back disadvantaged pupils'. This was more commonplace some years ago, when the 'bottom' sets/streams were frequently allocated all the worst teachers, with predictable, self-fulfilling consequences.

1. I have consistently said teacher's organisations not teachers. And the NEU is the largest teacher's organisation out there.

2. The NEU opposes streaming as a matter of policy. It explicitly prioritises equality over excellence.

Elitism should not be a dirty word in teaching any more than it is in sport or the military. Equality should not be the overwhelming guiding principle of everything because, as you already said, it is unattainable and, as I have already said, these days the way it is pushed usually leads to a race to the bottom.

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

I know you've had this explained to you before, but...

You can have a school with a very able intake, that gets results that are good, but not as good as they should be.

You can have another school where most of the intake isn't as able, but the pupils consistently overachieve. That can include them doing very well by the small number of very able pupils they have.

I know both of these can happen, because I've worked in both of them.

Do you really think the first school is better?

Yes it is.

Overall in the league tables it gets better results.

Just because a football team advanced into the old 1st division say from the 3rd division it would still be worse than a Premier league team with top players coasting mid table

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

So which is the better school, the one where students progress much better than their peers or the one where they do just about as well as their peers?

The latter overall if they get better exam results and higher percentage into top universities.

A school might have better value added but still be worse overall in terms of exam results than the latter.

Just because an Olympic athlete improves from going out in the first round to a silver medallist, an athlete who won the gold on both occasions is still better

But as a parent you definitely want to send your kid to the better value added school, because they will get better grades there. That's the definition of value added.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

This loops back to the argument I used to have with OGH in the years before Cameron announced the referendum. At the time OGH used to use this IPSOS issues poll to support a claim that people didn't give a Monkeys about the EU. The problem with that was that, take to its logical conclusion that meant they also didn't give a Monkeys about the Environment. the Elderly and many other issues that regularly ranked lower than the EU as an issue.

The problem with such thinking is it is based on the idea that people can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. People are asked to rank their priorities, not whether they care or don't care about the other issues. Just because something ranks low on the table (which extends far beyond the list posted in the thread header) doesn't mean people don't care about those issues, just that other things are to the forefront at present.

The issues questioning is very useful, but too often it is misinterpreted.

That's true but I think people can put more than one thing as an answer, based on the text of the question. I would personally put it as my #1 concern but I'm surprised others aren't even listing it among a number of issues. Is it any wonder that as a country we are falling short on education and skills when people don't seem to care about it?

I would put the economy… our productivity is too low because of the lack of skills, education and a badly designed tax system. See the problem with this kind of polling?

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

I know you've had this explained to you before, but...

You can have a school with a very able intake, that gets results that are good, but not as good as they should be.

You can have another school where most of the intake isn't as able, but the pupils consistently overachieve. That can include them doing very well by the small number of very able pupils they have.

I know both of these can happen, because I've worked in both of them.

Do you really think the first school is better?

Yes it is.

Overall in the league tables it gets better results.

Just because a football team advanced into the old 1st division say from the 3rd division it would still be worse than a Premier league team with top players coasting mid table

Yes, but that's largely an irrelevant number.

Which school would best for your child?

The first one, where they are likely to underachieve?

Or the second one, where they are likely to overachieve?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

As somebody who worked in 14-19 education throughout my career, I've two objections to your comment:

1. Anti-elitism doesn't "infect every corner of the teaching profession". Far from it. Most state school and college teachers, to give one example, are immensely proud when they get kids into Oxbridge and other 'elite' HE institutions. Many are, however, against privilege by accident of birth.

2. For 40 years, you say, our education sector has been based on "the principle of equality through lowest common denominator". That's also inaccurate. If you'd written "equality of opportunity" then you may have a point. But equality? That's for the birds; there's no notion of equality underpinning any of our education or examination system. Equality of opportunity, however, seems a noble cause.

And yet it is that 'for the birds' policy that the teaching organisations have pursued in defence of their ideology. Just go and look at the stated policy of the NEU right now - they are opposed to streaming and setting because "Setting and streaming can exacerbate inequalities and hold back disadvantaged pupils."

1. The NEU doesn't necessarily reflect what teachers do or think.

2. Actually, the NEU is right in saying that 'setting and streaming can ...... hold back disadvantaged pupils'. This was more commonplace some years ago, when the 'bottom' sets/streams were frequently allocated all the worst teachers, with predictable, self-fulfilling consequences.

1. I have consistently said teacher's organisations not teachers. And the NEU is the largest teacher's organisation out there.

2. The NEU opposes streaming as a matter of policy. It explicitly prioritises equality over excellence.

Elitism should not be a dirty word in teaching any more than it is in sport or the military. Equality should not be the overwhelming guiding principle of everything because, as you already said, it is unattainable and, as I have already said, these days the way it is pushed usually leads to a race to the bottom.

The point is setting and streaming doesn't necessarily promote excellence ahead of equality. It can do, if used at the right time and in the right way. But very often it's actually anti-elitist because it leaves you with the ablest children in very large classes where they get much less attention from the teacher. (There is a reason why the statisticians of the DfE insist you get better results from large classes, and that is it.)

Setting and not setting both have significant drawbacks, as well as benefits. It is true that the NEU does have a view on the subject that is dogmatic for no very good reason, but ultimately they are irrelevant. I've been a union activist, a timetabler and somebody who decided who went in what group. I can assure you my union's wishes never entered into my head when I was doing it.

Ultimately, as long as we see 30 as about the right size for a class, it is to a great degree irrelevant as to who we have in it. We will continue to have a state education system that underperforms.

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

Such as? (And don't quote Cummings as a source, please. He makes David Irving look honest.)

I agree with you to an extent about the anti-elitism, but that actually comes more from the civil service and the managers than from ordinary teachers. We respect bright people.

As for the lowest common denominator, again that is a function of the National Curriculum and - ironically - the grammar schools for all process, which was a civil service invention under first Wilson, carried on through Callaghan and then finally came to fruition under Thatcher.

I think it's easier to blame teachers than ask the really difficult question - if it's their fault, why have people ostensibly in power for so many years let them get away with it?

Because they had power. Because they should be listened to as the people delivering the education at the sharp end but when they were given that power and listened to they misused that power for ideological ends (note, as I said in my previous comment I am referring to teaching organisations rather than individual teachers).

If this is all the fault of Cummings and Gove then why did the UK PISA rankings drop from 7th in the world in 2000 to 26th in the world in 2009? At a time when Labour were supposedly spending lots more money on education? Our rankings had actually improved substantially between 2015 and 2018 - a time when teachers were decrying all the curriculum changes that were taking place.

Education is a mess and that is the fault of decades of anti-elitism and ideology. But teaching organisations bear a great deal of responsibility for that alongside the civil servants and politicians.

Read my previous comment. I didn't blame Cummings and Gove. I said they accelerated it. The big problem with the two of them is they did exactly what the DfE wanted while being fooled into thinking they were doing the opposite. Our rankings, in any case, are more about priorities. Cummings and Gove buggered every other subject for a short term gain in maths, essentially. It didn't last and because they didn't understand what they were doing or address the fundamentals it was never going to.

As for your last comment, that's pure prejudice. It's like saying the current state of the oil industry is because the HSE prizes lives over accidents. The reason it is a mess, ironically, is precisely because of that sort of attitude.

The rankings I am referring to cover Maths, reading and science, not just maths alone.

And the current very good state of the Oil Industry is exactly because we (and the authorities) prize lives over accidents. The transformation of the oil industry post Piper Alpha and the Cullen report has made the industry safer, more technologically advanced, more profitable and more successful. Ask anyone in the business and they will tell you all those things have come about exactly because we have put safety first and above all other things and have developed an attitude of elitism and intolerance to poor performance and lowest common denominator practices. Governments could learn a hell of a lot from the oil industry when it comes to radical improvement.

And out of curiosity, did you achieve this improvement by listening to the people working in the industry or by civil servants and accountants who used the oil?

But the improving athlete had the better coaching between the races, which is what we are talking about. Clearly you have a view of what is “better” in education that necessarily excludes the achievements of the vast majority of students, teachers and schools.

pillsbury said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

As somebody who worked in 14-19 education throughout my career, I've two objections to your comment:

1. Anti-elitism doesn't "infect every corner of the teaching profession". Far from it. Most state school and college teachers, to give one example, are immensely proud when they get kids into Oxbridge and other 'elite' HE institutions. Many are, however, against privilege by accident of birth.

2. For 40 years, you say, our education sector has been based on "the principle of equality through lowest common denominator". That's also inaccurate. If you'd written "equality of opportunity" then you may have a point. But equality? That's for the birds; there's no notion of equality underpinning any of our education or examination system. Equality of opportunity, however, seems a noble cause.

And yet it is that 'for the birds' policy that the teaching organisations have pursued in defence of their ideology. Just go and look at the stated policy of the NEU right now - they are opposed to streaming and setting because "Setting and streaming can exacerbate inequalities and hold back disadvantaged pupils."

1. The NEU doesn't necessarily reflect what teachers do or think.

2. Actually, the NEU is right in saying that 'setting and streaming can ...... hold back disadvantaged pupils'. This was more commonplace some years ago, when the 'bottom' sets/streams were frequently allocated all the worst teachers, with predictable, self-fulfilling consequences.

1. I have consistently said teacher's organisations not teachers. And the NEU is the largest teacher's organisation out there.

2. The NEU opposes streaming as a matter of policy. It explicitly prioritises equality over excellence.

Elitism should not be a dirty word in teaching any more than it is in sport or the military. Equality should not be the overwhelming guiding principle of everything because, as you already said, it is unattainable and, as I have already said, these days the way it is pushed usually leads to a race to the bottom.

The point is setting and streaming doesn't necessarily promote excellence ahead of equality. It can do, if used at the right time and in the right way. But very often it's actually anti-elitist because it leaves you with the ablest children in very large classes where they get much less attention from the teacher. (There is a reason why the statisticians of the DfE insist you get better results from large classes, and that is it.)

Setting and not setting both have significant drawbacks, as well as benefits. It is true that the NEU does have a view on the subject that is dogmatic for no very good reason, but ultimately they are irrelevant. I've been a union activist, a timetabler and so ebony who decided who went in what group. I can assure you my union's wishes never entered into my head when I was doing it.

Ultimately, as long as we see 30 as about the right size for a class, it is to a great degree irrelevant as to who we have in it. We will continue to have a state education system that underperforms.

"so ebony." We are all, in a very real sense, God's chillun.

What @hyufd said earlier about autocorrect!

To what extent is private schooling correlated with income inequality?

Britain is more unequal than its European neighbours, but less unequal than the U.S.

It may be that private schools do not perpetuate inequality themselves, but are merely symptoms of it.

I myself often find that I am pretty much the only publicly educated person is a group of peers (social or work), which does trouble me, but
British private schooling is one of the few remaining world-class sectors left in the UK. It would be crazy to just junk them without very good, evidence-based reasons.

While I wait for that evidence, I send both my kids to a private school because I can and I want the best for them.

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

As somebody who worked in 14-19 education throughout my career, I've two objections to your comment:

1. Anti-elitism doesn't "infect every corner of the teaching profession". Far from it. Most state school and college teachers, to give one example, are immensely proud when they get kids into Oxbridge and other 'elite' HE institutions. Many are, however, against privilege by accident of birth.

2. For 40 years, you say, our education sector has been based on "the principle of equality through lowest common denominator". That's also inaccurate. If you'd written "equality of opportunity" then you may have a point. But equality? That's for the birds; there's no notion of equality underpinning any of our education or examination system. Equality of opportunity, however, seems a noble cause.

And yet it is that 'for the birds' policy that the teaching organisations have pursued in defence of their ideology. Just go and look at the stated policy of the NEU right now - they are opposed to streaming and setting because "Setting and streaming can exacerbate inequalities and hold back disadvantaged pupils."

1. The NEU doesn't necessarily reflect what teachers do or think.

2. Actually, the NEU is right in saying that 'setting and streaming can ...... hold back disadvantaged pupils'. This was more commonplace some years ago, when the 'bottom' sets/streams were frequently allocated all the worst teachers, with predictable, self-fulfilling consequences.

1. I have consistently said teacher's organisations not teachers. And the NEU is the largest teacher's organisation out there.

2. The NEU opposes streaming as a matter of policy. It explicitly prioritises equality over excellence.

Elitism should not be a dirty word in teaching any more than it is in sport or the military. Equality should not be the overwhelming guiding principle of everything because, as you already said, it is unattainable and, as I have already said, these days the way it is pushed usually leads to a race to the bottom.

The point is setting and streaming doesn't necessarily promote excellence ahead of equality. It can do, if used at the right time and in the right way. But very often it's actually anti-elitist because it leaves you with the ablest children in very large classes where they get much less attention from the teacher. (There is a reason why the statisticians of the DfE insist you get better results from large classes, and that is it.)

Setting and not setting both have significant drawbacks, as well as benefits. It is true that the NEU does have a view on the subject that is dogmatic for no very good reason, but ultimately they are irrelevant. I've been a union activist, a timetabler and somebody who decided who went in what group. I can assure you my union's wishes never entered into my head when I was doing it.

Ultimately, as long as we see 30 as about the right size for a class, it is to a great degree irrelevant as to who we have in it. We will continue to have a state education system that underperforms.

Why do setting and streaming automatically lead to the brightest children being in "very large classes"? I can't see how that follows at all.

Driver said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

As somebody who worked in 14-19 education throughout my career, I've two objections to your comment:

1. Anti-elitism doesn't "infect every corner of the teaching profession". Far from it. Most state school and college teachers, to give one example, are immensely proud when they get kids into Oxbridge and other 'elite' HE institutions. Many are, however, against privilege by accident of birth.

2. For 40 years, you say, our education sector has been based on "the principle of equality through lowest common denominator". That's also inaccurate. If you'd written "equality of opportunity" then you may have a point. But equality? That's for the birds; there's no notion of equality underpinning any of our education or examination system. Equality of opportunity, however, seems a noble cause.

And yet it is that 'for the birds' policy that the teaching organisations have pursued in defence of their ideology. Just go and look at the stated policy of the NEU right now - they are opposed to streaming and setting because "Setting and streaming can exacerbate inequalities and hold back disadvantaged pupils."

1. The NEU doesn't necessarily reflect what teachers do or think.

2. Actually, the NEU is right in saying that 'setting and streaming can ...... hold back disadvantaged pupils'. This was more commonplace some years ago, when the 'bottom' sets/streams were frequently allocated all the worst teachers, with predictable, self-fulfilling consequences.

1. I have consistently said teacher's organisations not teachers. And the NEU is the largest teacher's organisation out there.

2. The NEU opposes streaming as a matter of policy. It explicitly prioritises equality over excellence.

Elitism should not be a dirty word in teaching any more than it is in sport or the military. Equality should not be the overwhelming guiding principle of everything because, as you already said, it is unattainable and, as I have already said, these days the way it is pushed usually leads to a race to the bottom.

The point is setting and streaming doesn't necessarily promote excellence ahead of equality. It can do, if used at the right time and in the right way. But very often it's actually anti-elitist because it leaves you with the ablest children in very large classes where they get much less attention from the teacher. (There is a reason why the statisticians of the DfE insist you get better results from large classes, and that is it.)

Setting and not setting both have significant drawbacks, as well as benefits. It is true that the NEU does have a view on the subject that is dogmatic for no very good reason, but ultimately they are irrelevant. I've been a union activist, a timetabler and somebody who decided who went in what group. I can assure you my union's wishes never entered into my head when I was doing it.

Ultimately, as long as we see 30 as about the right size for a class, it is to a great degree irrelevant as to who we have in it. We will continue to have a state education system that underperforms.

Why do setting and streaming automatically lead to the brightest children being in "very large classes"? I can't see how that follows at all.

Because you put the ones who need more individual attention to pass the exams in the smaller groups where the teacher can spend more time working with them to scrape them up to a bare pass.

If our schools were not exam factories it wouldn't be such an issue.

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

So which is the better school, the one where students progress much better than their peers or the one where they do just about as well as their peers?

The latter overall if they get better exam results and higher percentage into top universities.

A school might have better value added but still be worse overall in terms of exam results than the latter.

Just because an Olympic athlete improves from going out in the first round to a silver medallist, an athlete who won the gold on both occasions is still better

But as a parent you definitely want to send your kid to the better value added school, because they will get better grades there. That's the definition of value added.

No they won't, a child entering the school with D grades who ends up with B grades has had better value added input than a child entering a school with A grades and leaving with A grades.

The school producing the latter is still better than the former

Eh? How is the latter school 'better'?
I suppose we can't know how much the latter child has improved. He may be scoting 100%. It's possible that more value has been added ajd the grading system is just not granular enough at the top end to show it. But I don't think that's what you mean.
But all other things being equal, I would rather my children went to the former school. The one that improves them, rather than maintains them.
Obviously all other things aren't equal, and grades are often seen as a proxy for behaviour, which is also a valid consideration.

Gardenwalker said:

To what extent is private schooling correlated with income inequality?

Britain is more unequal than its European neighbours, but less unequal than the U.S.

It may be that private schools do not perpetuate inequality themselves, but are merely symptoms of it.

I myself often find that I am pretty much the only publicly educated person is a group of peers (social or work), which does trouble me, but
British private schooling is one of the few remaining world-class sectors left in the UK. It would be crazy to just junk them without very good, evidence-based reasons.

While I wait for that evidence, I send both my kids to a private school because I can and I want the best for them.

I'm educated within the public system too. I think that the only thing that really matters is the desire to learn. My comprehensive school was just out of its period as a Grammar school, and as such we had teachers that had knowledge and cared about it. I think the latter idea is key. You have to care about it.

Gardenwalker said:

To what extent is private schooling correlated with income inequality?

Britain is more unequal than its European neighbours, but less unequal than the U.S.

It may be that private schools do not perpetuate inequality themselves, but are merely symptoms of it.

I myself often find that I am pretty much the only publicly educated person is a group of peers (social or work), which does trouble me, but
British private schooling is one of the few remaining world-class sectors left in the UK. It would be crazy to just junk them without very good, evidence-based reasons.

While I wait for that evidence, I send both my kids to a private school because I can and I want the best for them.

And our private schools attract pupils the world over as they are so good.

Germany for example also still has lots of grammar schools as we used to, gymnasiums

ydoethur said:

Driver said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

As somebody who worked in 14-19 education throughout my career, I've two objections to your comment:

1. Anti-elitism doesn't "infect every corner of the teaching profession". Far from it. Most state school and college teachers, to give one example, are immensely proud when they get kids into Oxbridge and other 'elite' HE institutions. Many are, however, against privilege by accident of birth.

2. For 40 years, you say, our education sector has been based on "the principle of equality through lowest common denominator". That's also inaccurate. If you'd written "equality of opportunity" then you may have a point. But equality? That's for the birds; there's no notion of equality underpinning any of our education or examination system. Equality of opportunity, however, seems a noble cause.

And yet it is that 'for the birds' policy that the teaching organisations have pursued in defence of their ideology. Just go and look at the stated policy of the NEU right now - they are opposed to streaming and setting because "Setting and streaming can exacerbate inequalities and hold back disadvantaged pupils."

1. The NEU doesn't necessarily reflect what teachers do or think.

2. Actually, the NEU is right in saying that 'setting and streaming can ...... hold back disadvantaged pupils'. This was more commonplace some years ago, when the 'bottom' sets/streams were frequently allocated all the worst teachers, with predictable, self-fulfilling consequences.

1. I have consistently said teacher's organisations not teachers. And the NEU is the largest teacher's organisation out there.

2. The NEU opposes streaming as a matter of policy. It explicitly prioritises equality over excellence.

Elitism should not be a dirty word in teaching any more than it is in sport or the military. Equality should not be the overwhelming guiding principle of everything because, as you already said, it is unattainable and, as I have already said, these days the way it is pushed usually leads to a race to the bottom.

The point is setting and streaming doesn't necessarily promote excellence ahead of equality. It can do, if used at the right time and in the right way. But very often it's actually anti-elitist because it leaves you with the ablest children in very large classes where they get much less attention from the teacher. (There is a reason why the statisticians of the DfE insist you get better results from large classes, and that is it.)

Setting and not setting both have significant drawbacks, as well as benefits. It is true that the NEU does have a view on the subject that is dogmatic for no very good reason, but ultimately they are irrelevant. I've been a union activist, a timetabler and somebody who decided who went in what group. I can assure you my union's wishes never entered into my head when I was doing it.

Ultimately, as long as we see 30 as about the right size for a class, it is to a great degree irrelevant as to who we have in it. We will continue to have a state education system that underperforms.

Why do setting and streaming automatically lead to the brightest children being in "very large classes"? I can't see how that follows at all.

Because you put the ones who need more individual attention to pass the exams in the smaller groups where the teacher can spend more time working with them to scrape them up to a bare pass.

If our schools were not exam factories it wouldn't be such an issue.

Ah, so it's not an intrinsic fault of setting/streaming at all?

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

Such as? (And don't quote Cummings as a source, please. He makes David Irving look honest.)

I agree with you to an extent about the anti-elitism, but that actually comes more from the civil service and the managers than from ordinary teachers. We respect bright people.

As for the lowest common denominator, again that is a function of the National Curriculum and - ironically - the grammar schools for all process, which was a civil service invention under first Wilson, carried on through Callaghan and then finally came to fruition under Thatcher.

I think it's easier to blame teachers than ask the really difficult question - if it's their fault, why have people ostensibly in power for so many years let them get away with it?

Because they had power. Because they should be listened to as the people delivering the education at the sharp end but when they were given that power and listened to they misused that power for ideological ends (note, as I said in my previous comment I am referring to teaching organisations rather than individual teachers).

If this is all the fault of Cummings and Gove then why did the UK PISA rankings drop from 7th in the world in 2000 to 26th in the world in 2009? At a time when Labour were supposedly spending lots more money on education? Our rankings had actually improved substantially between 2015 and 2018 - a time when teachers were decrying all the curriculum changes that were taking place.

Education is a mess and that is the fault of decades of anti-elitism and ideology. But teaching organisations bear a great deal of responsibility for that alongside the civil servants and politicians.

Read my previous comment. I didn't blame Cummings and Gove. I said they accelerated it. The big problem with the two of them is they did exactly what the DfE wanted while being fooled into thinking they were doing the opposite. Our rankings, in any case, are more about priorities. Cummings and Gove buggered every other subject for a short term gain in maths, essentially. It didn't last and because they didn't understand what they were doing or address the fundamentals it was never going to.

As for your last comment, that's pure prejudice. It's like saying the current state of the oil industry is because the HSE prizes lives over accidents. The reason it is a mess, ironically, is precisely because of that sort of attitude.

The rankings I am referring to cover Maths, reading and science, not just maths alone.

And the current very good state of the Oil Industry is exactly because we (and the authorities) prize lives over accidents. The transformation of the oil industry post Piper Alpha and the Cullen report has made the industry safer, more technologically advanced, more profitable and more successful. Ask anyone in the business and they will tell you all those things have come about exactly because we have put safety first and above all other things and have developed an attitude of elitism and intolerance to poor performance and lowest common denominator practices. Governments could learn a hell of a lot from the oil industry when it comes to radical improvement.

And out of curiosity, did you achieve this improvement by listening to the people working in the industry or by civil servants and accountants who used the oil?

First and foremost it was imposed on the industry through changes to the statutory authorities, giving them far more power and massively increasing the legislative control over every aspect of the industry. You don't really think oil companies would have agreed to it without it first being imposed by the Government do you?

Setting strict controls which are backed up by prosecution and where companies can and are prevented from operating if they don't meet the standards demanded has meant that we have seen massive improvements in both safety and environmental controls. And once that was imposed and the companies found that working within those rules they could actually get much better performance as organisations (having been dragged kicking and screaming to that realisation) it is now such an integral part of what we do that I find it almost impossible to imagine not doing things that way.

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

So which is the better school, the one where students progress much better than their peers or the one where they do just about as well as their peers?

The latter overall if they get better exam results and higher percentage into top universities.

A school might have better value added but still be worse overall in terms of exam results than the latter.

Just because an Olympic athlete improves from going out in the first round to a silver medallist, an athlete who won the gold on both occasions is still better

But as a parent you definitely want to send your kid to the better value added school, because they will get better grades there. That's the definition of value added.

No they won't, a child entering the school with D grades who ends up with B grades has had better value added input than a child entering a school with A grades and leaving with A grades.

The school producing the latter is still better than the former

Suppose your kid would get a B other things being equal. She goes to a school where most kids would get an A other things being equal, but which does nothing to improve kids' grades relative to the baseline. So your kid gets a B, even though the average kid at the school gets an A. Or she goes to a school where most kids get a C other things being equal, but the school improves every kid's score by one grade. So at this school your kid gets an A, even though the average kid at the school gets a B. On your definition the first school is "best", but your kid does better at the second school, which in my view is the better school.

In most cases value added schools focus on getting D grade pupils to C grades or at most some to B grades. Rarely are they focused on getting A grades which schools where most pupils get A grades are

No school in England focuses on that.

If only because the grades are from 9-1 not A*-G.

Or the equivalent.

If you want best at getting from poor to average focus on value added, if you just want consistency top grades focus on the standard top league table schools

StillWaters said:

Basically Remain couldn’t help themselves because they loved to point out that leavers were wrong. And the leave campaign used that.

Yes, the Leave campaign revelled in being wrong.

In disparaging experts.

In idiocy in general.

And they won.

And now we're fucked.

Slow hand clap...

Scott_xP said:

StillWaters said:

Basically Remain couldn’t help themselves because they loved to point out that leavers were wrong. And the leave campaign used that.

Yes, the Leave campaign revelled in being wrong.

In disparaging experts.

In idiocy in general.

And they won.

And now we're fucked.

Slow hand clap...

Scott, you didn't attach the link.

Bastards.

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Education not even on the list. Crazy.

Indeed.

I'm not really convinced we give a shit about kids in this country, except our annoyance at them when they become feral.

We care far more about animals.

Labour have an opportunity to become the party for families, 35h free childcare from age 1, huge investment in schools and bring uni fees back down to £1k per year. For once tell the nation that ensuring kids are educated is more important than ensuring some 89 year old can live for another 2 years at huge expense to the NHS.

They'd hoover up votes if they did that.

The subsidised nursery care for 3-4 year olds (which was a LD policy, to be fair) is hugely popular with parents, and certainly makes our lives easier.

If they guaranteed class sizes of not more than 20 in the state sector they would kill private education stone dead anyway, apart from a handful of real snob schools.

Not necessarily it is the intake which boosts private and grammar schools most not the class size

At last, you concede that Grammar schools are not better schools.

Not better than all private schools, better than almost all comprehensives and academies however

How can they be better if, as you say, it is their intake which boosts them, not their teaching and learning…

As they get better results and more pupils percentage wise into top universities.

You can have a better value added school which still gets worse results than most private and grammar schools overall

So which is the better school, the one where students progress much better than their peers or the one where they do just about as well as their peers?

The latter overall if they get better exam results and higher percentage into top universities.

A school might have better value added but still be worse overall in terms of exam results than the latter.

Just because an Olympic athlete improves from going out in the first round to a silver medallist, an athlete who won the gold on both occasions is still better

But as a parent you definitely want to send your kid to the better value added school, because they will get better grades there. That's the definition of value added.

No they won't, a child entering the school with D grades who ends up with B grades has had better value added input than a child entering a school with A grades and leaving with A grades.

The school producing the latter is still better than the former

Suppose your kid would get a B other things being equal. She goes to a school where most kids would get an A other things being equal, but which does nothing to improve kids' grades relative to the baseline. So your kid gets a B, even though the average kid at the school gets an A. Or she goes to a school where most kids get a C other things being equal, but the school improves every kid's score by one grade. So at this school your kid gets an A, even though the average kid at the school gets a B. On your definition the first school is "best", but your kid does better at the second school, which in my view is the better school.

In most cases value added schools focus on getting D grade pupils to C grades or at most some to B grades. Rarely are they focused on getting A grades which schools where most pupils get A grades are

OK so that is different. Why didn't you say that in the first place? That is all part of the process of selecting your school, but you didn't put that in your initial statement, just the bland comparison which didn't make sense.

In fact that is really the basis on which we choose a school for our son. I might have mentioned before that he is exceptionally clever, I mean off the scale clever. I was teaching him A level maths when he was at primary school. He was offered a scholarship to a rather well known school which we accepted on the basis that they might be able to stretch him. We sent our daughter who has more normal academic abilities to the very good local comprehensive.

Oh and by the way you often refer to me as being ideological. I'm not as that demonstrates.

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, this is pretty much what I'd expect.

If I were playing the happy europhile game c.2008-2011 I would point out that 'Europe' is at least 10th on this list under a generous interpretation, and probably lower, and therefore "no-one cares about Europe" - as dozens of thread headers argued at the time.

But, that would be churlish - so I won't.

I guess that’s before NHS buses. Would it be churlish to mention the NHS hasn’t seen the extra £350m a week it was promised?

I think the NHS has had more than a 350 million a week increase since the EU ref ?

Yep they have.

Not convinced by the causal link though. I argued at the time of the referendum it was a false figure to be quoting and never understood why they used it when the real figure of £280 million a week was bad enough. Just made a rod for their own backs.

I though the reason was well known. Cummings has gone on about the theory and practice enough.

Yes, the £350 million was false, but it could only be rebutted by talking about other large figures, making the point Vote Leave wanted made.

Appalling dishonesty, but excellent practical vote winning. We'll never know if that was what tipped the balance.

I know Cummings argument but I think that is just him justifying the lie after the event.

Well, that is his normal modus operandi and has been for years.

Is this the moment to talk about his - ummm - impact on education again ?

Only if you are willing to discuss why our education system has been failing compared to many others for decades (and long before Cummings came along).

I'm perfectly happy to discuss how the incompetent and complacent meddling of civil servants arrogating more and more power to themselves and making a shambles of everything due to their stupidity, and the self-aggrandisement of failed teachers like say, Chris Woodhead have led over many decades via the accelerations brought about by Cummings, Friedman, Gove, Morgan, Gibb and Spielman, to the current clusterfuck.

And how about the self importance of some influential teacher's organisations who have, for decades, put ideology ahead of the best interests of the children. The anti-elitism that infects every corner of the teaching profession and which we as both former pupils and now parents still see rampant in our schools. Our whole state education sector has been based for the last 40 years on the principle of equality through lowest common denominator.

You choose to lay the blame on one side of the equation whilst conveniently forgetting the other side. I see the blame (more or less) equally on both sides.

Such as? (And don't quote Cummings as a source, please. He makes David Irving look honest.)

I agree with you to an extent about the anti-elitism, but that actually comes more from the civil service and the managers than from ordinary teachers. We respect bright people.

As for the lowest common denominator, again that is a function of the National Curriculum and - ironically - the grammar schools for all process, which was a civil service invention under first Wilson, carried on through Callaghan and then finally came to fruition under Thatcher.

I think it's easier to blame teachers than ask the really difficult question - if it's their fault, why have people ostensibly in power for so many years let them get away with it?

Because they had power. Because they should be listened to as the people delivering the education at the sharp end but when they were given that power and listened to they misused that power for ideological ends (note, as I said in my previous comment I am referring to teaching organisations rather than individual teachers).

If this is all the fault of Cummings and Gove then why did the UK PISA rankings drop from 7th in the world in 2000 to 26th in the world in 2009? At a time when Labour were supposedly spending lots more money on education? Our rankings had actually improved substantially between 2015 and 2018 - a time when teachers were decrying all the curriculum changes that were taking place.

Education is a mess and that is the fault of decades of anti-elitism and ideology. But teaching organisations bear a great deal of responsibility for that alongside the civil servants and politicians.

Read my previous comment. I didn't blame Cummings and Gove. I said they accelerated it. The big problem with the two of them is they did exactly what the DfE wanted while being fooled into thinking they were doing the opposite. Our rankings, in any case, are more about priorities. Cummings and Gove buggered every other subject for a short term gain in maths, essentially. It didn't last and because they didn't understand what they were doing or address the fundamentals it was never going to.

As for your last comment, that's pure prejudice. It's like saying the current state of the oil industry is because the HSE prizes lives over accidents. The reason it is a mess, ironically, is precisely because of that sort of attitude.

The rankings I am referring to cover Maths, reading and science, not just maths alone.

And the current very good state of the Oil Industry is exactly because we (and the authorities) prize lives over accidents. The transformation of the oil industry post Piper Alpha and the Cullen report has made the industry safer, more technologically advanced, more profitable and more successful. Ask anyone in the business and they will tell you all those things have come about exactly because we have put safety first and above all other things and have developed an attitude of elitism and intolerance to poor performance and lowest common denominator practices. Governments could learn a hell of a lot from the oil industry when it comes to radical improvement.

And out of curiosity, did you achieve this improvement by listening to the people working in the industry or by civil servants and accountants who used the oil?

First and foremost it was imposed on the industry through changes to the statutory authorities, giving them far more power and massively increasing the legislative control over every aspect of the industry. You don't really think oil companies would have agreed to it without it first being imposed by the Government do you?

Setting strict controls which are backed up by prosecution and where companies can and are prevented from operating if they don't meet the standards demanded has meant that we have seen massive improvements in both safety and environmental controls. And once that was imposed and the companies found that working within those rules they could actually get much better performance as organisations (having been dragged kicking and screaming to that realisation) it is now such an integral part of what we do that I find it almost impossible to imagine not doing things that way.

Where did you get the information from to impose those standards?

I want you to imagine that the same thing had happened. But the standards were written by a second hand car salesman in Plymouth, with input from all his mates. While drunk. And that the priority was not to save lives, but to ensure the aforesaid mates got good headlines and cushy numbers in Whitehall. And then, having written them, they refused any change even when their ideas of dressing everyone in clown suits and padded jackets had failed to make a difference.

At this point, you will begin to have some idea of what it is like to work in education.

I have never lectured you on oil rigs because I know nothing about them. I know they're difficult and dangerous places to work and you need high qualifications and lots of experience to thrive in that scenario. I use oil (far more than I want to at the moment) but I've no idea how to extract it and I'm content to leave it to the professionals.

Out of curiosity why do you think your views on education as a parent and somebody who's read a couple of books, one written by a notorious liar, are more meaningful than those of people who work in it, to the extent that you can lecture us on what does or doesn't work? I wouldn't say your views are worthless. I do say that you would benefit from pausing to consider whether perhaps the fact every teacher on this board is telling you your views are overly simplistic is a sign they might, in fact, be overly simplistic.

As an aside, I think I would say the real enemy of good education is dogmatism. 'This is what I think, so we'll do it and it will work.' As everyone child is different and so is every teacher and every school, such dogmatism is highly counterproductive. It's one of the big weaknesses with both OFSTED and the DfE that they do still see the scenario as 'our policies are right and you must follow them' and one reason why our school system struggles.

Belarus foreign minister dies suddenly at the age of 64

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/26/europe/belarus-foreign-minister-dies-intl/index.html