Government's new plan on Grammar Schools

[miga]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Aristide Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "There's middle class and middle class"

>

> I'm from Australia, where there really isnt such

> an identifiable class system to speak of. Sure

> there's rich and poor, but its not so ingrained

> 'where you come from', unless you're talking about

> geography.

I also grew up in Australia, and think the idea that Australia is a "classless" society (not in the "Kath and Kim" sense, but in the sense of an absence of entrenched social divisions according to who your parents are) is one of those national myths people tell themselves to make themselves feel a bit better (file next to "mateship", the "fair go" and being "easygoing"). Australia has the exact same historical class structures (exclusive schools, yacht clubs, perfectly manicured posh, monocultural neighbourhoods) as England.

[LondonMix]

I don't know-- I barely understand what's going on right now in the economy much less what might happen and I have advanced economics training. The future is very unclear for me.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Aristide, but without room at the top, its

> > impossible to have social mobility unless some

> of

> > those at the top fall down a level socially,

> which

> > I'm not sure happened even in the 50s.

>

> Could new areas emerge - allowing more room at the

> top ?

[miga]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> boguns are like chavs. Is 'chav' a class too?

>

> and im not saying there's no class snobbery at

> all. But its not even a patch on how people think

> about it here.....

Jeepers....here's some for starters:

http://affirmpress.com.au/publishing/the-bogan-delusion/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chavs-Demonization-Working-Owen-Jones/dp/1844678644

[LondonMix]

Agree with Aristide. I am also a foreigner (American). Middle class in the US just means, average. Here middle class is often used as a stand in for the top 10% of earners and I'd actually say almost everything the article references is very common among that group. I belong to it (in financial terms) so I know the specie intimately...

[LondonMix]

I don't know OZ, but what I find different about US class and UK class is that in the UK you can have relatively very little money and still be seen as being middle or upper class. Class here is more than your specific financial circumstances and money alone doesn't allow you to move between classes quite as fluidly as would be the case in the US. Also, in the US ordinary people careless about it. I doubt if even 10% of people in the US outside of the northeast could even name any of the ultra prestigious boarding schools that are feeders to the Ivy League in the same way Eton etc are for Oxbridge. People just don't care about the upper classes in the same way.

[miga]

I don't know the US - but it would be interesting to see the hit rate for the "top jobs" from the schools you mention.

Also - I've heard this "money isn't class" thing bandied about, and I think it's a myth. Maybe an outlier here and there, sure, but there's surely strong correlation between the two. The duke fallen on hard times....gimme a break, two generations of that, and as Kenny Powers would say, "you're f***** out".

[TheCat]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Aristide Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > "There's middle class and middle class"

> >

> > I'm from Australia, where there really isnt

> such

> > an identifiable class system to speak of. Sure

> > there's rich and poor, but its not so ingrained

> > 'where you come from', unless you're talking

> about

> > geography.

>

> I also grew up in Australia, and think the idea

> that Australia is a "classless" society (not in

> the "Kath and Kim" sense, but in the sense of an

> absence of entrenched social divisions according

> to who your parents are) is one of those national

> myths people tell themselves to make themselves

> feel a bit better (file next to "mateship", the

> "fair go" and being "easygoing"). Australia has

> the exact same historical class structures

> (exclusive schools, yacht clubs, perfectly

> manicured posh, monocultural neighbourhoods) as

> England.

Miga, I dont wholly disagree. I guess what I'm saying is that your 'class' does not seem to dominate your psyche in Australia as it does here. Or 'Class discussions' (like this one!:)) are not nearly as commonly seen in the public conscience back in Australia. I dont disagree that there are 'elites' and 'boguns' etc; but there is not a national preoccupation with which class one is; Or what people in 'other classes' are doing.

Dont get me wrong, I can complain plenty about my fellow Australians and those 'myths' that you mention. For example the 'elitisim' which comes from those that live and work in Australia versus people who have moved overseas. Drives me up the wall to be constantly told in my job 'Ah mate, you're in the UK, you dont understaaaaaand how we do it down here in Straya'

Can be summed up like this in my view:

Australian in Australia: 'Straya is the BEST COUNTRY in the worrllllllld mate'

me: 'Have you ever lived anywhere else'

Australian in Australia: 'Nah, dont need to mate! Why would you leave paradise?'

me: 'Facepalm'

[LondonMix]

The hit rate is pretty high though the grip isn't exclusive. So all those guys get great jobs but most of their colleagues won't have gone to those schools if you know what I mean.

I think there are people who are clearly defined as middle class because of the way they speak and other social elements of how they live (dress, sports the watch etc). Someone earning the exact same amount without those specific cultural affectations would be considered working class. That's the bit that's different. I talking about a level well below Dukes :)

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know the US - but it would be interesting

> to see the hit rate for the "top jobs" from the

> schools you mention.

>

> Also - I've heard this "money isn't class" thing

> bandied about, and I think it's a myth. Maybe an

> outlier here and there, sure, but there's surely

> strong correlation between the two. The duke

> fallen on hard times....gimme a break, two

> generations of that, and as Kenny Powers would

> say, "you're f***** out".

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[miga]

Yeah - but the current focus of state education is to raise the general level, rather than to squeeze out the best from the best. So it really depends on what you're measuring.

[LondonMix]

The problem with grammars here is that the system is easily manipulated by socio-economic advantage so that access isn't entirely determined by merit (or raw capability). Therefore they fail at the fundamental task of increasing social mobility.

[LondonMix]

There are of course many exceptions, including my very working class mother in law who was a grammar school girl. She still left at 15 to get a job but was predicted all As despite regularly skipping class as she didn't fit in. The point is you have to be exceptionally clever as a working class kid to get in whereas the middle classes just get a better free education than the rest of the population-- and this is a zero sum game in many respects due to limited resources including quality teachers. If it was truly meritocratic, I'd have a lot less issue with them. Some of the ideas being bandied around by the government for quotas for lower income students in grammars would help address some of these imbalances.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Otta]

I've said it a million times before, but for me "middle class" and "working class" mean absolutely nothing anymore, and haven't done since the 80s.

I am totally guilty of using the term "middle class" as a lazy way of referring to people that think pubs are places to eat and enjoy jazz, but it basically means nothing definable.

[miga]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The hit rate is pretty high though the grip isn't

> exclusive. So all those guys get great jobs but

> most of their colleagues won't have gone to those

> schools if you know what I mean.

Right - same as here and in Oz then. I think that's what people mean when they talk about entrenching privilege, social mobility blah blah - you're likely to do well if your parents do well.

> I think there are people who are clearly defined

> as middle class because of the way they speak and

> other social elements of how they live (dress,

> sports the watch etc). Someone earning the exact

> same amount without those specific cultural

> affectations would be considered working class.

> That's the bit that's different. I talking about

> a level well below Dukes :)

I understand that, but it winds me up, in case that wasn't obvious :-)

I think there are so many myths about social class, and people tie themselves into knots trying to conform to these. I think as a society we're going backwards into these stupid stories following what was in the end a fairly progressive era. "Oooh, look at Prince George in his lovely little outfit with his very expensive nanny by his side". Slight vom.

The Duke thing was just illustrative of the "money != class" thing, another nonsense in my view. "Class" in this sense is a set of behaviours that allow people to stratify (accent, aesthetics, posture, poor dental hygiene), and the "money != class" thing lends it a veneer of some kind of innate, "natural" state of being. In reality it's just some made up mumbo jumbo to entrench privilege once you have a bit, and these myths help perpetuate the "especial" nature of class behaviours. It's the Mitford sisters' "u" and "non u" mysticism.

(That was a bit ranty).

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[miga]

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?

[Earl Aelfheah]

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

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[LondonMix]

I think the getting kids into university measure, while somewhat interesting doesn't address the entire picture. The 7% or so of kids that attend private school absolutely are not enough to run every job requiring a university degree in the country these days-- that's part of the room at the top legacy of past growth.

However, within certain sectors of the economy, a private school education is almost universal among those working in the field. In my field that is 100% the case for every British person (not so among the Europeans and Americans).

The industry doesn't have to be extremely well paid for this to be the case either, but can still be the reserve of those from a certain upbringing.

An example (that is changing) is airline pilots. I didn't even realise there was a class dimension to this until one of my friends started dating a BA pilot. He was originally from East London and very working class. As a kid he was told if he wanted to become a pilot he'd have to lose his East London / working class accent, which he did. When my very young brother in law met him, he remarked, I can't believe that guy is a pilot, he seems so normal. Normal to him meant not posh.

There is a psychological barrier for working class people regarding certain industries and this is sometimes a real barrier reinforced by specific class prejudice in hiring. I worked a summer job in the UK in 2004 for headhunter in financial services while still at university and we had a client specifically turn down a more qualified candidate because of fit. My boss was exceedingly posh (Eton, tittle, the works) so he felt comfortable saying it was because of his social background. My boss ranted and raged about it for ages as he was actually a pretty hard core egalitarian.

[JohnL]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know OZ, but what I find different about

> US class and UK class is that in the UK you can

> have relatively very little money and still be

> seen as being middle or upper class. Class here

> is more than your specific financial circumstances

> and money alone doesn't allow you to move between

> classes quite as fluidly as would be the case in

> the US. Also, in the US ordinary people careless

> about it. I doubt if even 10% of people in the US

> outside of the northeast could even name any of

> the ultra prestigious boarding schools that are

> feeders to the Ivy League in the same way Eton etc

> are for Oxbridge. People just don't care about

> the upper classes in the same way.

I judge middle class as when you want your son/daughter

to go to University. Nobody younger than me distinguishes

University, Polytechnic and Institute of Higher Education -

but my mother would have looked down on the latter 2 when

I was growing up - I saw her as much more middle class than my

dad, born in Neath.

[DaveR]

"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."

I think the true position is more nuanced. We know that what doesn't work is the system of grammars and secondary modern schools that existed prior to the Crosland policies in the late 60s, but (as the studies cited above confirm) the real issue was how poor secondary moderns were, not that grammars didn't do their job. We also know that what doesn't work is the present set up, whereby there are pockets of grammar schools fairly randomly dotted around the country, creating the greatest possible incentive for what is known in the literature as 'neighbourhood sorting', as well as other nefarious middle class tactics. However, to dismiss any selective education on this basis is not just wrong, but counter-productive, because there are lots of people who (quite reasonably) are going to disagree with you. And also, the last bit just isn't true - grammars still outperform even the best comprehensive schools, let alone the average ones, when educating the brightest. And that's consistent with the research, that shows that most pupils benefit from mixed ability teaching (even within a streamed school set up), except the top 10% or so.

My own view is that some sort of division between academic and technical/vocational education is an obviously good idea, probably better a bit earlier than 16 as currently, but not as early as 11. It's pretty common in other European countries, but, as noted previously, the two key points are that every pupil should benefit from a rigorous approach to embed basic maths/english & core academic skills to (say) 14, and then technical and vocational colleges need to be properly resourced (with the recognition that this costs more, not less, than high end academic schools).

[????]

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

[miga]

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.

[LondonMix]

Looking up quids question, I came across this rather interesting article about the state and private sector. Obviously nothing to do with grammars but interesting all the same. Obviously here in Dulwich the private schools are some of the top in the entire country which can lead you to forget how mediocre many private schools actually might be.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/the-best-state-schools-have-pulled-ahead-of-private-schools-why-is-that-so-hard-to-accept/