Magpie

I am less concerned about relative measures of progression, than absolute levels of teaching and performance. It is easier to improve performance from a low base than a high base, and the percentaqe improvements are likely to be more significant, particularly when you get more cash due to higher levels of deprivation and more children who speak English as a second language. The stats can also be skewed by focusing effort on really low performers. The real question for me, as a parent whose child has just started at Heber, is whether Maths teaching is any good, not whether it is better or worse at improving relative levels of performance.

I think I had incorrectly conflated special needs with a demographics point. From the report: "Around 18% of pupils are known to be eligible for additional support through the pupil premium, which provides additional funding for looked after children, those eligible for free school meals and the children of service families. This figure is below the national average. There are a few pupils looked after by the local authority, and no pupils from service families at the school." "Around 14% of the pupils speak English as an additional language and this proportion is above the national average." I would expect that there would be more children on free school meals, and with English as an additional language in other schools in ED due to the presence of social housing blocks in the catchment area. The latter point would certainly be expected to impact on absolute performance.

On the progression point - are they measuring the improvement in performance given the starting point, as opposed the to overall level of performance? It could be the case that Heber has higher performing students at KS2 compared with other ED schools, its just that overall progression from KS1 is less rapid? On the demographic point - I would imagine that Heber has lower proportion of disadvantaged or special needs children, or whatever it is, plus a lower proportion of children who speak english as a foreign language, than other ED schools that have large social housing blocks in the catchment area.

A knee jerk criticism of the police is more Guardianista than Mail reader

Getting back on topic - the removal of child benefit, combined with this new tax credit for working mothers, leaves a number of stay at home mothers disadvantaged (ie they are getting less money from the state than before, and less than other parents on higher incomes are getting), as it has been implemented on an inequitable basis. Opposition is perfectly understandable and logical. Should the state support families with children? Well it did until recently when it decided to introduce means testing for child benefits. I doubt any other political party would seriously consider removing child benefit altogether so lets assume that society agrees that having children should be supported by the state. The current mix of child benefit and tax credits for childcare penalise single earner families relative to dual earners. I don't disagree that a childcare tax break should only be available for those who need childcare, but what about a transferrable married couples tax allowance?

and who is more likely to be a quality care giver? a low paid worker in a nursery looking after multiple children versus the child's actual parent on a one-2-one basis? It's common sense and explains why women who do return to work try and work part time as much as possible, and often relay on grandparents for childcare. Recent studies from Sweden certainly suggest that institutional care can be harmful to young children: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/26/jonas-himmelstrand-two-generations-of-universal-daycare-have-left-sweden%E2%80%99s-children-less-educated/

Child benefit has been paid to every mother (or father in single dad families) for every child since 1970's regardless of income, as society explicitly recognised that raising a family required additional support. I imagine that the majority of people on this forum benefitted from it. This has now been removed in an inequitable way from some moderately well-off families, and in parallel a new benefit related to childcare is being provided to other (in some cases) better off families. This is not about jealousy its about equity, but also I actually disagree with the policy: I think young children do better when cared for by a parent (certainly up to the ages of 2/3) rather than a nanny or a nursery, and most mothers agree with me, which is why many choose to work part-time rather than full time, and hence the government should be supporting this (eg via transferrable married couples tax allowance), rather than trying to encourage women back to work 6 months after birth. The economics are debatable as any study should take into account the broader social costs and benefits, and not just the financial.

The opposition to this additional benefit should be taken in the context of the removal of child benefit, and it is really related to the inequalities of how that change was implemented. Now we find our that families where both parents are in employment will get additional support up to a combined income of ?300k, yet the single earner family on ?60k gets not child benefit. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

I can recommend Eurocamp/Key Camp - no really sure on the difference. Driving in France is easy - and depending how far south you go, can take less time than the hour journey to airport, 2 hr wait, 2 hr flight, 1 hour transfer etc. Downside is that weather in southern France is less reliable than, say, southern Spain, but personally I think that villages, beaches, food etc are superior to competitors (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece). Also great if you have small children as there is always a plentiful supply of pals, and sites feel very relaxed and safe.

TFL have successfully scared the commuters away - the whole thing has the hallmarks of a cunning false flag exercise - ie scare everyone whitless with stories of travel chaos so people take holiday or work from home so the transport system is empty, and all the foreign visitors who were fearful home pleasantly surprised.

One of my colleagues at work who specialises in operational research suggested that the plans at London Bridge are about minimising the number of people in the station to prevent over-crowding - effectively they are pushing the crowds out of the station and will queue rail passengers into the station in the evenings. Mornings coming up from ED should be fine - unless of course, like this morning, there is a signal failure. I suspect evenings will also be ok - as the crunch platforms will be 1 - 6, and I suspect, as was the case after the jubilee pagent, people who want to get to platforms 12 - 16 will be able to get in reasonably easily as we will be funnelled off the right handside of the main exit. I semi-jogged back from LB the other day and took me around 45mins so thats going to be my fall back plan

I also have the Tefal multi-use one, and its brill. I use it for really simple stews/cassoroles which our toddler eats too. Simply chop up Spuds, Sweet pots, onion, carrots, leeks, celery etc and then shove in chicken thighs/lamb shoulder/braising steak, with seasoning and a teeny tiny bit of stock, and leave for 8 hours. Browning is for flavour and colour rather than for food safety, but isn't a necessity - very economical and easy way of cooking. For me biggest issue is liquid - I tend to put too much in - giving me a soup rather than a stew at the end of the day, but it still tastes good.

Depending on where you look - 123 people have gone to the US, and 54 have come the other way - so its 120% more http://rt.com/news/extradition-america-mckinnon-uk-029/

The results of the independent review have been questions - to the extent that Nick Clegg has called for a second review, and a number of MPs (from all parties) are continuing to campaign for a change in the treaty. In practice vastly more UK citizens have been extradited to the US than vice versa - the failure to renegotiate the treaty - which was a manifesto pledge - is a significant black mark against the government.

The A2 route is in the wrong direction - although its dual carriage way from Blackheath so easier to drive. I tend to go down through Croydon, and join A23 there rather than going on the Purley way, but to be honest all routes take about as long as each other.

Ringing the changes is one thing, taking a team of boys to play the Scots at Murryfield in February is something else - they're dooomed

I have tickets for the game - and fully expect England to get mugged - a new young team taking on the Scots at Murryfield looking for revenge from the worldcup - we're doomed . . . .

I wouldn't burn the tree on an house fire - full of sap! Also, the tree shouldn't come down till the 6th January - eg 12th night

I don't see any evidence from those who disagree with MM that there isn't a causal relationship, just opinion. People accusing MM of bias in interpreting the data, should be aware of their own. Recognition of marriage through the tax system does not penalise anyone else - so I don't see the harm in doing so.

What the evidence shows is that stable marriage tends, on average, to result in better outcomes for children. Now you may argue that there is an element of self selection involved - ie the most responsible people are likely to marry. However, intuitively it makes sense that a two parent relationship provides a more stable and importantly, financially secure homelife than a single parent relationship, and that couples who marry, tend to stay together longer than those that don't. In particular, it also makes intuitive sense that the absence of a strong male role model has an impact on the behaviour of boys in particular. Hence, you can't dismiss the case for marriage on a causal/correlation argument.

This is deeply depressing, effing aholes - a work of art destroyed for a few quid.

Brindisia at borough market may be able to help -there is a shop as well as a resturant

A single currency can only work if there is both a single monetary and single fiscal policy. The Euro only had a common monetary policy. There was attempted convergence of fiscal policy (eg 3% budget deficits etc), but this did not remove the significant structural differences across the Euro area in terms of wage rates, competitiveness, productivity etc. What it needed was significant and continiuing fiscal tranfers between regions, and a common fiscal policy - these were not in place, and hence the experiment was structurally flawed from the start. Unless the Germans allow the ECB to intervene and act as the lender of last resort, and agree to bail out the PIIGs through fiscal transfers, then the EURO will fail. Its that simple. Britain was right to stay out, and was right to veto the "ignore the elephant in the room" deal agreed last week.

I am not sure we are going to be worse off - rather relatively worse off - ie the gap between the west and the rest of the world shrinks - even the most optimistic forecasts will not see an average chinese persons income approaching that of an average American's by the end of the century. All of this has been sped up by the decade long credit boom, and hence things feel uncomfortable - but lets be realistic, unemployment is no-where near the levels that were seen in the early 1980's or even the early 1990's. Also as the middle class expands in China, India, Brazil etc then demands for worker's rights, state healthcare, political freedom etc will also increase - so they have their own issues.

Hellosailor - I think you sum up my view pretty neatly - it is not fun going anywhere with a buggy, and less so when you are conscious that its in the way. I also agree with your point about baby friendly pubs - for 5 out of 7 days of the week the majority of businesses in ED rely on the family market. Then suddenly at the weekend a load of childless 20-somethings appear, generally hungover and grumpy and moan about prams taking over their area!