Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> What happened to evidence based policy? Government

> Ministers should take a Hippocratic oath - first

> do no harm. Big systematic changes should always

> be trialed and outcomes properly analysed, before

> being implemented more widely. Shake ups in health

> and education should only be made on the basis of

> good evidence that they'll be effective, otherwise

> patients and children suffer, just to ministers

> can enjoy tinkering. There is just so much random

> on the hoof policy announced, seemingly based on

> little more than the 24 hour news cycle and the

> wim of some minster or other. Where are the grown

> ups?



Agree with this. So let's ditch Socialism as the abject failure it has been proved on so many occasions as a starter :)

No-one knows :)


In reality, I think it will allow schools that want to to go selective..many won't as all the principled left wing people will give anything selective a swerve naturally*


*exceptions being Harman, Corbyn, Seaumus Milne, Shami Chakabrati, Emily 'hate the plebs' Thornberry, Diane 'the marxist' Abbot...I could go on (AND ON) but you get my drift

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I didn't mention empire. Anyone who thinks that

> income inequality will be tackle by a conservative

> government, is in cloud cuckoo land.


But you wrote of "an old England long gone" and " a backward looking, nostalgic little England". To me that sounds much more spinster-on-a-bike than it does Bob and Thelma.


And where on earth did I suggest that the Tories would reduce income inequality?


I was pointing out that not all nostalgia is petty, parochial and blinkered.

Loads of the successful London schools that keep on being referred to are already selective (in different ways). They're just not called grammars.


(you're forgetting all the many Grauniad writers who were privately educated - but let's get our knickers in a twist about grammars.)

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> Quids, why does wanting to change a system (or

> prevent movement in a direction you disagree with)

> mean you wouldn't want to get the very best for

> your own children from the current system in play?

> That's ridiculous, surely?


So legal tax avoidance a la Jimmy Carr is fine then too by that logic and everyone banged/S on about that and he doesn't put himself up on a morally superior pedestal either. There's an absolute equivalence. It's rank hypocracy from those that preach and lecture so sanctimoniously....no excuse whatsoever

Unfortunately many of these privately over-educated, verbose know nothings do not want the great unwashed having the same opportunities as they had because then they probably won't get their votes- although the brexit vote was a kick in the teeth for them.

The comprehensive system has created an underclass on benefits because bright students in some schools hide their lights under bushels for fear of bullying. Young people who are not academically inclined (or have not had support at home due to their parents being 'educated' under Labour) cannot even get fairly well-paid building labouring jobs now due to free movement- so you get clever (and I have seen this) year 9 girls who just want a baby when they leave school- or younger-like their own mothers.(educate a woman and you educate a generation- Brigham Young)

remember it was Tony Crosland, Labour , educated at Charterhouse- (so what the feck did he know?) who started the wholesale destruction of grammar schools and the reliance we now have on educated people from the developing world to fill specialist posts- thereby depriving the developing world of its brightest!

uncleglen- grammars as they currently operate in the UK result in less social mobility and pupils in areas with grammar schools, do less well in comprehensives than equally able pupils studying in areas without grammars. These are facts. Lifting the masses out of their current condition isn't facilitated by grammars and this is well understood. Charities whose sole purpose is to research and advocate for fair education policies that help social mobility (like the Sutton Trust) understand these issues in a way that an individual's anecdotal experience cannot.


I get that we are now in a post-facts era and no one wants to hear about research and evidence etc. Let's see where that approach gets us and hopefully the pendulum will swing back the other way to evidence based policy

miga Wrote:

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

> Loads of the successful London schools that keep

> on being referred to are already selective (in

> different ways). They're just not called

> grammars.

>

> (you're forgetting all the many Grauniad writers

> who were privately educated - but let's get our

> knickers in a twist about grammars.)


Private education is of course a different issue (as its not something that the state pays for).

  • 3 months later...

This is interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jan/19/grammar-schools-lose-top-spots-after-league-table-shakeup


It would be even more interesting to see how independent schools performed on the same measure (how much schools advance their pupils? grades)

  • 1 month later...

No-one has systematically criticised Germany for enabling the brightest students to achieve their best, or for enabling others to receive vocational education which is exactly what we had in the UK before the lefty idiot Crosland had his way.

http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germanschools.html


As someone from a working class background who went to grammar school in a very deprived area, and as someone who has spent the last 20 years teaching in inadequate 'educational' establishments in Inner London I wholly support the creation of many more grammar schools because at the moment only people who can afford to move to Chislehurst and have private tutors can get into one.

Someone should ask the arch-hypocrites Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey what THEY think of grammar schools, and also ask Diane Abbott what kind of socialist she thinks she is

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> No-one has systematically criticised Germany for

> enabling the brightest students to achieve their

> best, or for enabling others to receive vocational

> education which is exactly what we had in the UK

> before the lefty idiot Crosland had his way.

> http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germanschools.ht

> ml

>

> As someone from a working class background who

> went to grammar school in a very deprived area,

> and as someone who has spent the last 20 years

> teaching in inadequate 'educational'

> establishments in Inner London I wholly support

> the creation of many more grammar schools because

> at the moment only people who can afford to move

> to Chislehurst and have private tutors can get

> into one.

> Someone should ask the arch-hypocrites Harriet

> Harman and Jack Dromey what THEY think of grammar

> schools, and also ask Diane Abbott what kind of

> socialist she thinks she is


And there is the problem - policy based on anecdote instead of evidence. Grammars will mean far fewer opportunities for kids from less affluent backgrounds. But it was good for you and it was good for May so it must be a good idea right?

I am really uncomfortable with faith schools being in the mix here. If a religion/way of life is important to you, make sure your children get to know about it at home and in the wider community but not at a state-funded school.

The nauseating altar-crawling that some parents put themselves through to pretend to be a believer to get a child into a certain faith school goes against the ideas of honesty and humility that religions profess.

Ditch the GCSE/A-levels, go for a nationwide (including Scotland) form of examination that includes vocational and practical aspects/options and let students do BAs/BScs in two rather than three years.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...