Earl Aelfheah

Ha! Had totally forgotten about El Paso

Osborne repeatedly missed his own targets on which he asked us to judge him. I will, thanks George. Sure, he did bring down the deficit, but more slowly than Labour had said they would - a rate which Obsorne had claimed would be disastrous. Both him and Cameron talked down the economy in the early days of their first term and did a lot of damage in the process. All to make political capital by suggesting that Labour had crashed the economy and left us 'like Greece'. They repeatedly took decisions which weren't thought through and weren't in the national interest in exchange for small, short term political gains. Cameron's decision to gamble on Brexit was cavalier. Oh, and then there's Libya of course. Any achievements are well outweighed by their failures. The net result, is probably worse than nothing. I believe that history will judge both him and Osborne rather badly.

Very littke was achieved (dint be so literal). osbourne failed by his own standards.

Some excellent analysis by the FT http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/

Totally agree with that blah

I've an idea. We could run a pilot (say in Kent) and see if it increases overall attainment and social mobility.

Besides, common sense should tell you that dividing kids based on a single test at age eleven, as opposed to having ability sets for different subjects based on ongoing progress and attainment, isn't sensible.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think what the links from rah^3 state is that in > grammar counties, the poorer kids slightly > underperform their peers in non-grammar counties, > while the brightest pupils do marginally better. > That's in the current system. > > There is no evidence about widespread grammar > introduction (obvs. - it hasn't happened yet, and > 50 years is a long time). > > As far as university entrance as a measure of any > kind of academic achievement, I'm unconvinced. London does better all round. Evidence is that grammar schools are bad for social mobility and bring overall attainment down. A significant number of their intake come from the private sector also, which has a bearing.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't non-grammar schools in Grammar school > counties also out perform comprehensives on > average too? or is that propoganda? genuine > question but I saw it somewhere The exact opposite is true. Overall attainment is reduced.

They didn't reduce the debt. They decreased the deficit.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We actually do pretty well in getting the > > brightest kids to university. Where we should > be > > concentrating is on those who underachieve > where > > we do very poorly, comparatively. > > Is that the aim - to get kids into university? Not > much of a bar, is it? The point is that we do well (by international standards) at getting the brightest through to Higher Education and into the professions, but are rubbish when it comes to providing technical and vocational education for those who are not able or interested in academic routes.

Some actual evidence about grammars: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media-centre/blogs/category/item/5-reasons-why-a-return-to-grammar-schools-is-a-bad-idea https://fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/ https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8469

.

The IFS report on this, pretty much sums up my position on grammar schools (there is also plenty of other research into the effects of grammar schools and it all points to much the same): "Grammar schools seem to offer an opportunity to improve and stretch the brightest pupils, but seem likely to come at the cost of increasing inequality. Inner London, by contrast, has been able to improve results amongst the brightest pupils and reduce inequality. This suggests that London schools probably offer more lessons on ways to improve social mobility than do grammar schools." We know what works and it isn't grammar schools, which bring down attainment levels generally, increase inequality and don't actually offer the brightest anything more than the average inner London comprehensive.

We actually do pretty well in getting the brightest kids to university. Where we should be concentrating is on those who underachieve where we do very poorly, comparatively.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think these are a great idea (but I would, being a third > generation selective everything hoop-jumper) - and > yes, they do wonders for social mobility. Except all the evidence (of which there is plenty) suggests they really don't. Mind you, we are post fact now.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In every classroom, > there are children who could aspire to her job (or > mine, or yours) but will never know it. In every > grand office, there are people who got there > through the expensive cultivation of unremarkable > talent. They do not know it either." This is so, so true. Could even be applied to Cameron.

There is 70 years of good evidence on the grammar system and it nearly all shows that privveledgr and inequality are entrenched by it. The debate really should be over. Setting kids for different subjects within the same school and relentlessly targeting and raising the standards of underperforming schools, rather than segregating kids based on an exam which can be gamed at age 11 is the way to go. London schools have been tirnwd around through concerted efforts over many years. We know what works. [aplogies for typos, on my phone]

Dave and several of his cabinet, were a good example of the dangers of public school privilege. No doubt a nice enough chap, but should never have been allowed near that job and never would have been had he been born to different circumstances.

So it kind of sounds like deliveries to the front (which appears to be what's happening) is actually everyone's preference anyhow.

If Iceland were able to deliver to the back of the store though, surely M&S shouldn't have any problems?

It does seem that the planning process is a bit of a joke.

Farage was quoted by a reporter as saying "I think the doctors have got it wrong on smoking".

Thanks for the clarification re. deliveries. Clearly, if it was a condition of the planning application that they deliver tot he back of the store, then this is what they should be doing. Has anyone questioned this with M&S yet?

I'm confused. Where are the delivery lorries meant to be parking?