Join the Labour Party and save your country!

morstar

Just step away from the minutiae a moment.
Are academically able kids of the more affluent working classes and upwards being failed by the current education system? No, they're really not.
So why is our education performance falling. Because the poorer areas and less academically able are not being provided for.
How on earth do grammar schools tackle the area of education that needs tackling?

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Just step away from the minutiae a moment.
Are academically able kids of the more affluent working classes and upwards being failed by the current education system? No, they're really not.
So why is our education performance falling. Because the poorer areas and less academically able are not being provided for.
How on earth do grammar schools tackle the area of education that needs tackling?

How do you come to that conclusion? Evidence please.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

Just step away from the minutiae a moment.
Are academically able kids of the more affluent working classes and upwards being failed by the current education system? No, they're really not.
So why is our education performance falling. Because the poorer areas and less academically able are not being provided for.
How on earth do grammar schools tackle the area of education that needs tackling?

How do you come to that conclusion? Evidence please.

A-C grades have consistently improved for 30 years or so until this year where the re-sits rules changed the outcomes.
Ofsted shows the average standard consistently improving.

Now you can argue as much as you like about those measures but they are the government measures consistently used to demonstrate by both Labour and Cons that the education system (and their reforms) have been working.

So by what measure do you prove me wrong?

And yet the Ofsted results that do show consistent poor performance are in predominantly poor areas.

Again, how do grammar schools solve that when so few would pass the 11+?

But again, trying to stay above party politics and traditional battle lines...

If it were to be accepted that Grammar schools are a valid contribution to improving our education system and also accepted that the downside to such an approach is classifying kids as failures at 11. How do we embrace the positives of Grammars whilst tackling that down side?

How about a more holistic approach where one institution encompasses a grammar and a secondary modern and a tertiary college and kids can move between the elements as they maybe do achieve more with maturity and changing performance. Maybe they could be separate campuses but at least one educational institution with consistent good management. Don't just let Grammars cherry pick but make an institution cover the entire spectrum of needs with all the advantages of streaming but also deploying the skills of their top quality teachers / leadership towards the challenges of the less academically able.

Or do you really want only the lucky ones to have access to a good education?

ballysmate

Pool of talent must be very shallow from which Corbyn has to form a shadow cabinet.

Shadow Foreign Sec.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37332287

Perhaps she would have performed better if she had been asked a question about football.

ballysmate

Not the first time she's shown the depth of her knowledge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... films.html

ballysmate

Though to be fair, she does sometimes show remarkable insight.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 02721.html

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

Just step away from the minutiae a moment.
Are academically able kids of the more affluent working classes and upwards being failed by the current education system? No, they're really not.
So why is our education performance falling. Because the poorer areas and less academically able are not being provided for.
How on earth do grammar schools tackle the area of education that needs tackling?

How do you come to that conclusion? Evidence please.

A-C grades have consistently improved for 30 years or so until this year where the re-sits rules changed the outcomes.
Ofsted shows the average standard consistently improving.

Now you can argue as much as you like about those measures but they are the government measures consistently used to demonstrate by both Labour and Cons that the education system (and their reforms) have been working.

So by what measure do you prove me wrong?

And yet the Ofsted results that do show consistent poor performance are in predominantly poor areas.

Again, how do grammar schools solve that when so few would pass the 11+?

But again, trying to stay above party politics and traditional battle lines...

If it were to be accepted that Grammar schools are a valid contribution to improving our education system and also accepted that the downside to such an approach is classifying kids as failures at 11. How do we embrace the positives of Grammars whilst tackling that down side?

How about a more holistic approach where one institution encompasses a grammar and a secondary modern and a tertiary college and kids can move between the elements as they maybe do achieve more with maturity and changing performance. Maybe they could be separate campuses but at least one educational institution with consistent good management. Don't just let Grammars cherry pick but make an institution cover the entire spectrum of needs with all the advantages of streaming but also deploying the skills of their top quality teachers / leadership towards the challenges of the less academically able.

Or do you really want only the lucky ones to have access to a good education?

I was just asking for evidence for your claim. You made It, you back it up. Link maybe?

Or tell you what, let's cut to the chase. Question for anyone who does not support grammar schools and has kids. If your kid was offered a place a local grammar school, would you accept it? Say why or why not.

ballysmate

Stevo, kids don't just get offered a place, they have to earn it. Can't imagine myself denying any of my offspring something that they earned through their endeavours.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Or tell you what, let's cut to the chase. Question for anyone who does not support grammar schools and has kids. If your kid was offered a place a local grammar school, would you accept it? Say why or why not.

Think you ll find its parents pushing for the GS place.....
But No, she didn't even want too, liked her existing friends, loads of travel time and local comp offered a better mix of educational ops rather than just a conveyer belt of GCSEs.

Starting 6th form now with a string of decent GCSEs s wants to be a physio.

Bright kids with parental support will always do well, it's The ones that don't have these we need to work with and GS do not help these kids from not following on in their parents foot steps.
We also lack decent vocational training starting at 14 say, move away from academia and work with these kids other skills.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was just asking for evidence for your claim. You made It, you back it up. Link maybe?

.

Again, you lose the point so bait and switch.

GCSE Grades and Ofsted are well documented which are the measures I referenced. You can look it up yourself, it's an Internet forum and you're not in charge so I don't need to post a link to keep you happy.

You're sticking to your pedantic point because again you had no answer for some uncomfortable truths.

I'm not suggesting grammars don't get good results. But...

Do you believe all kids have an equal right to a good quality education? If you do, why promote a system that purposefully further tilts the best resources directly at those who already have advantages and aren't actually suffering in the current system to the detriment of those already underachieving.

As individuals, we can all make decisions to best suit ourselves and our families. The job of government is to best serve the country as a whole.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Or tell you what, let's cut to the chase. Question for anyone who does not support grammar schools and has kids. If your kid was offered a place a local grammar school, would you accept it? Say why or why not.

Think you ll find its parents pushing for the GS place.....
But No, she didn't even want too, liked her existing friends, loads of travel time and local comp offered a better mix of educational ops rather than just a conveyer belt of GCSEs.

Starting 6th form now with a string of decent GCSEs s wants to be a physio.

Bright kids with parental support will always do well, it's The ones that don't have these we need to work with and GS do not help these kids from not following on in their parents foot steps.
We also lack decent vocational training starting at 14 say, move away from academia and work with these kids other skills.

Wrong on the first point. We discussed it with out kid and gave her a choice between the GS and the local comp where most of her mates were going to. She chose the GS.

And wrong on the conveyor belt assumption. She I getting a good broad based education in a school that is al22ndlso in the whole country for GCSE results. The real life success of a grammar and stuff anyone who tries to stop that.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was just asking for evidence for your claim. You made It, you back it up. Link maybe?

.

Again, you lose the point so bait and switch.

GCSE Grades and Ofsted are well documented which are the measures I referenced. You can look it up yourself, it's an Internet forum and you're not in charge so I don't need to post a link to keep you happy.

You're sticking to your pedantic point because again you had no answer for some uncomfortable truths.

I'm not suggesting grammars don't get good results. But...

Do you believe all kids have an equal right to a good quality education? If you do, why promote a system that purposefully further tilts the best resources directly at those who already have advantages and aren't actually suffering in the current system to the detriment of those already underachieving.

As individuals, we can all make decisions to best suit ourselves and our families. The job of government is to best serve the country as a whole.

Stop changing the subject and give me some independent evidence instead of running away from your flakey claim. You do this quite often and its getting tiresome.

I'll answer your questions when you answer the ones I asked first

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was just asking for evidence for your claim. You made It, you back it up. Link maybe?

.

Again, you lose the point so bait and switch.

GCSE Grades and Ofsted are well documented which are the measures I referenced. You can look it up yourself, it's an Internet forum and you're not in charge so I don't need to post a link to keep you happy.

You're sticking to your pedantic point because again you had no answer for some uncomfortable truths.

I'm not suggesting grammars don't get good results. But...

Do you believe all kids have an equal right to a good quality education? If you do, why promote a system that purposefully further tilts the best resources directly at those who already have advantages and aren't actually suffering in the current system to the detriment of those already underachieving.

As individuals, we can all make decisions to best suit ourselves and our families. The job of government is to best serve the country as a whole.

How do you know they aren't suffering? What would their results be if they were put in an environment more suiting their abilities?
Yes I would like to see kids achieve their full potential, but not by chopping down the tall poppies.
I have said earlier that the problem wasn't with the GS, it was the standard of secondary moderns.

Stevo_666

Mamba was claim I g that therenis only an extra £50m going into th new GS project which doesn't really sit well with mortars claim that the best resources are being directed to grammars. One of them has to wrong.

I believe kids have a right to a good quality education that is suited to their abilities and aptitudes and to be treated fairly. Which clearly isn't catered for by one size fits all comps.

tangled_metal

You're chopping down some poppies before they've had a chance to grow tall. Focusing money on the high achievers you're taking it from the general taxation pot. The question government has to decide is if this is the best way to get good outcomes for as many kids as possible.

Grammar school supporters go on about helping the top and not having these grammar schools is cutting them down to the lowest denominator. Truth is, IMHO, a lot of those bright kids will do well anyway. Even if they underperform they'll still contribute to society. The lowest of society won't. Even the middle could suffer when you use money for the top without giving the larger proportions of school kids in the lowest and middle in terms of ability or performance.

Perhaps grammar schools are just ideology to appeal to the right not the best way to achieve good outcomes for as many of our nation's future as possible (I mean kids in case you need it spelling out). So far I only see comments like high results in grammar schools. Not news, course you'll get quality out when you put quality in. The question is whether that's good use of limited resources.

I personally can not see the likes of Stevo coming up with arguments why grammar schools is the best system for the whole of the school age section of our population. I believe you need to look at the needs of all kids of school age. Unless.you're happy that the UK writes people off to help the top gain marginal gains.

He's certainly right that what we have now isn't perfect by a long stretch. Comprehensive system doesn't help the bright kids, but nor does it help the lowest or even the middle. It's a system that's not working in many areas. However I want something to be done to get the best out of all kids going through the system.

If grammar schools really work for the brightest then great but until you have a system that works for the rest I believe it is wrong to go down the grammar school route. It's time to look at the whole education system including private/independent/public schools. Holistic solution for education.

ballysmate

Grammar school supporters go on about helping the top and not having these grammar schools is cutting them down to the lowest denominator. Truth is, IMHO, a lot of those bright kids will do well anyway. Even if they underperform they'll still contribute to society. The lowest of society won't. Even the middle could suffer when you use money for the top without giving the larger proportions of school kids in the lowest and middle in terms of ability or performance.

It is wrong to just let kids coast and not push them. If we are not going to educate our brightest kids to be the next generation of doctors or engineers, who will? A skill shortage of our own making.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

I personally can not see the likes of Stevo coming up with arguments why grammar schools is the best system for the whole of the school age section of our population. I believe you need to look at the needs of all kids of school age. Unless.you're happy that the UK writes people off to help the top gain marginal gains.

And here's me thinking you'd read the last 15 pages. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Too much idealistic whining on here without any concrete alternatives. Mind you, not as much as when TM implements the proposals and puts more grammars in.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Pool of talent must be very shallow from which Corbyn has to form a shadow cabinet.

Shadow Foreign Sec.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37332287

Perhaps she would have performed better if she had been asked a question about football.

I'm sure its all down to the evil tory created inequality of opportunity created by our education system

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was just asking for evidence for your claim. You made It, you back it up. Link maybe?

.

Again, you lose the point so bait and switch.

GCSE Grades and Ofsted are well documented which are the measures I referenced. You can look it up yourself, it's an Internet forum and you're not in charge so I don't need to post a link to keep you happy.

You're sticking to your pedantic point because again you had no answer for some uncomfortable truths.

I'm not suggesting grammars don't get good results. But...

Do you believe all kids have an equal right to a good quality education? If you do, why promote a system that purposefully further tilts the best resources directly at those who already have advantages and aren't actually suffering in the current system to the detriment of those already underachieving.

As individuals, we can all make decisions to best suit ourselves and our families. The job of government is to best serve the country as a whole.

Stop changing the subject and give me some independent evidence instead of running away from your flakey claim. You do this quite often and its getting tiresome.

I'll answer your questions when you answer the ones I asked first

I''m discussing broad issues. You're being pedantic about evidence for two widely accepted facts. You're still not in charge.

morstar

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was just asking for evidence for your claim. You made It, you back it up. Link maybe?

.

Again, you lose the point so bait and switch.

GCSE Grades and Ofsted are well documented which are the measures I referenced. You can look it up yourself, it's an Internet forum and you're not in charge so I don't need to post a link to keep you happy.

You're sticking to your pedantic point because again you had no answer for some uncomfortable truths.

I'm not suggesting grammars don't get good results. But...

Do you believe all kids have an equal right to a good quality education? If you do, why promote a system that purposefully further tilts the best resources directly at those who already have advantages and aren't actually suffering in the current system to the detriment of those already underachieving.

As individuals, we can all make decisions to best suit ourselves and our families. The job of government is to best serve the country as a whole.

How do you know they aren't suffering? What would their results be if they were put in an environment more suiting their abilities?
Yes I would like to see kids achieve their full potential, but not by chopping down the tall poppies.
I have said earlier that the problem wasn't with the GS, it was the standard of secondary moderns.

I haven't made a case for our education system being perfect. GCSE results and Ofsted are quite clear that good schools do a good job. Likewise it's quite clear that poor schools are struggling. There is high correlation between poor schools and the less well off.
How can making that disparity greater make sense?

Here's an analogy for you. I have a football team with a great attack but a weak defence. We keep scoring goals but our overall performance is perceived as poor because we ship lots of goals and lose games where we attacked well.
Is the most obvious place to begin improvements to invest all my best staff and resources in the attack.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Grammar school supporters go on about helping the top and not having these grammar schools is cutting them down to the lowest denominator. Truth is, IMHO, a lot of those bright kids will do well anyway. Even if they underperform they'll still contribute to society. The lowest of society won't. Even the middle could suffer when you use money for the top without giving the larger proportions of school kids in the lowest and middle in terms of ability or performance.

It is wrong to just let kids coast and not push them. If we are not going to educate our brightest kids to be the next generation of doctors or engineers, who will? A skill shortage of our own making.

Yep and if we carry on as we are, we are just continuing to breed generation after generation that pay no taxes claim benefits and don't contribute.
Neither you nor Steve0 seem able to grasp this.

No one here has said able kids shouldn't be pushed but the tories need also to come up with concrete plans to push less able ones either academically or vocationally.
Though tbh 50m is chicken feed so not sure how that will lead to your plans for a GS in every town and village

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Grammar school supporters go on about helping the top and not having these grammar schools is cutting them down to the lowest denominator. Truth is, IMHO, a lot of those bright kids will do well anyway. Even if they underperform they'll still contribute to society. The lowest of society won't. Even the middle could suffer when you use money for the top without giving the larger proportions of school kids in the lowest and middle in terms of ability or performance.

It is wrong to just let kids coast and not push them. If we are not going to educate our brightest kids to be the next generation of doctors or engineers, who will? A skill shortage of our own making.

Yep and if we carry on as we are, we are just continuing to breed generation after generation that pay no taxes claim benefits and don't contribute.
Neither you nor Steve0 seem able to grasp this.

No one here has said able kids shouldn't be pushed but the tories need also to come up with concrete plans to push less able ones either academically or vocationally.
Though tbh 50m is chicken feed so not sure how that will lead to your plans for a GS in every town and village

mamba, an example of the sentiment expressed in this discussion

One last question, is it better to get more to a moderate level or fewer to a greater level of success.

I repeatedly said that the problem was with the secondary moderns and not the GS. Tailor their education to their needs and abilities.
I am not a teacher, but I would assume that teaching the less academically inclined and disruptive is more resource intensive than teaching GS kids.
GS in every town and village? By nature GS have a large catchment area don't they, so this is not envisaged is it?

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was just asking for evidence for your claim. You made It, you back it up. Link maybe?

.

Again, you lose the point so bait and switch.

GCSE Grades and Ofsted are well documented which are the measures I referenced. You can look it up yourself, it's an Internet forum and you're not in charge so I don't need to post a link to keep you happy.

You're sticking to your pedantic point because again you had no answer for some uncomfortable truths.

I'm not suggesting grammars don't get good results. But...

Do you believe all kids have an equal right to a good quality education? If you do, why promote a system that purposefully further tilts the best resources directly at those who already have advantages and aren't actually suffering in the current system to the detriment of those already underachieving.

As individuals, we can all make decisions to best suit ourselves and our families. The job of government is to best serve the country as a whole.

How do you know they aren't suffering? What would their results be if they were put in an environment more suiting their abilities?
Yes I would like to see kids achieve their full potential, but not by chopping down the tall poppies.
I have said earlier that the problem wasn't with the GS, it was the standard of secondary moderns.

I haven't made a case for our education system being perfect. GCSE results and Ofsted are quite clear that good schools do a good job. Likewise it's quite clear that poor schools are struggling. There is high correlation between poor schools and the less well off.
How can making that disparity greater make sense?

Here's an analogy for you. I have a football team with a great attack but a weak defence. We keep scoring goals but our overall performance is perceived as poor because we ship lots of goals and lose games where we attacked well.
Is the most obvious place to begin improvements to invest all my best staff and resources in the attack.

See my reply to mamba about the areas which are resource intensive.

Re your football analogy. I run a football team and all the squad think they are George Best and want to play up front. I assess them and explain that they are not like George but would make a great Bobby Charlton or even a Gordon Banks. Some would even be suited to a Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter role.
All squad assessed and given role befitting their abilities followed by the best coaching available.

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

Re your football analogy. I run a football team and all the squad think they are George Best and want to play up front. I assess them and explain that they are not like George but would make a great Bobby Charlton or even a Gordon Banks. Some would even be suited to a Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter role.
All squad assessed and given role befitting their abilities followed by the best coaching available.

As long as they were on form on the day of the trial.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I was just asking for evidence for your claim. You made It, you back it up. Link maybe?

.

Again, you lose the point so bait and switch.

GCSE Grades and Ofsted are well documented which are the measures I referenced. You can look it up yourself, it's an Internet forum and you're not in charge so I don't need to post a link to keep you happy.

You're sticking to your pedantic point because again you had no answer for some uncomfortable truths.

I'm not suggesting grammars don't get good results. But...

Do you believe all kids have an equal right to a good quality education? If you do, why promote a system that purposefully further tilts the best resources directly at those who already have advantages and aren't actually suffering in the current system to the detriment of those already underachieving.

As individuals, we can all make decisions to best suit ourselves and our families. The job of government is to best serve the country as a whole.

Stop changing the subject and give me some independent evidence instead of running away from your flakey claim. You do this quite often and its getting tiresome.

I'll answer your questions when you answer the ones I asked first

I''m discussing broad issues. You're being pedantic about evidence for two widely accepted facts. You're still not in charge.

I'm happy to discuss the wider issues but when I press you to back up specific points you dodge them and then bizarrely claim I am changing the subject. Can you not see that?

Grammar schools are not new, they exist in many counties so we can see their effect. There is no evidence I can see of them adversely impacting local non-selectives in those areas, in my own area that I can see at close hand or anywhere else. I can also see the excellent results that they get and how my own kid has improved since going to a GS.

Also there is a good argument that grammars help improve non-selectives. After al they are all competing for pupils and have to put their best foot forward to sell themselves come application time. The head of on local comp I went to see was honest enough to say this and also the changes that they have made in order to improve. So a bit of healthy competition between schools is good. As with competition in many other areas of life.

But on your point about OFSTED evidence etc I can't see the info that supports your argument. Maybe you can point me to the specific bits that support your arguments? Unless of course you were bluffing it

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Re your football analogy. I run a football team and all the squad think they are George Best and want to play up front. I assess them and explain that they are not like George but would make a great Bobby Charlton or even a Gordon Banks. Some would even be suited to a Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter role.
All squad assessed and given role befitting their abilities followed by the best coaching available.

As long as they were on form on the day of the trial.

Except that going forwards there will now be more than one trial - entry points now aged 11, 14 and 16 per the proposals to be tabled today.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Yep and if we carry on as we are, we are just continuing to breed generation after generation that pay no taxes claim benefits and don't contribute.
Neither you nor Steve0 seem able to grasp this.

No one here has said able kids shouldn't be pushed but the tories need also to come up with concrete plans to push less able ones either academically or vocationally.
Though tbh 50m is chicken feed so not sure how that will lead to your plans for a GS in every town and village

There will be kids who end up being supported via benefits regardless of education system. I've said above that the existence of grammars has not precipitated some 'sink school armageddon' in areas where they exist. We can see this in real life and the local non-selective in my areas are pretty good. And as I mentioned above, improving themselves due to competing for pupils with grammars. How does continuing the current one size fits all system solve the issues you refer to above?

Also on the vocational point the role does not sit solely with the state. Business also has a role to play - after all they, not the state, know what skills they need. The apprentice levy and related apprentice incentives are generating positive developments in this area based on feedback from my counterparts in industry.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Or tell you what, let's cut to the chase. Question for anyone who does not support grammar schools and has kids. If your kid was offered a place a local grammar school, would you accept it? Say why or why not.

Anyone fancy answering this or are you all dodging it?

I wonder whether there are some 'Diane Abbotts' here, preaching against grammars while sending their own kids to them, or whether someone would genuinely deny their kid a good educational opportunity because of ideology?

Well?

bigmat

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Or tell you what, let's cut to the chase. Question for anyone who does not support grammar schools and has kids. If your kid was offered a place a local grammar school, would you accept it? Say why or why not.

Anyone fancy answering this or are you all dodging it?

I wonder whether there are some 'Diane Abbotts' here, preaching against grammars while sending their own kids to them, or whether someone would genuinely deny their kid a good educational opportunity because of ideology?

Well?

What's your point? Most people would send their kids to the best school available. It doesn't preclude them from having opinions about what are the best policies to ensure as many people have access to decent schools as possible. I personally don't think grammar schools are the answer to the problems faced by school education in this country, but I wouldn't feel the need to send my kids to a worse school on a point of principle if they were offered a place at a grammar school.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

I repeatedly said that the problem was with the secondary moderns and not the GS. Tailor their education to their needs and abilities.
I am not a teacher, but I would assume that teaching the less academically inclined and disruptive is more resource intensive than teaching GS kids.
GS in every town and village? By nature GS have a large catchment area don't they, so this is not envisaged is it?

Exactly, so if may wants poorer kids to go to GS then she'll have fund transport, uniforms and the rest of the costs associated with middle class schooling.
You r also right about extra costs with teaching less able kids, again the announcement on GS is just a smoke screen for what is really needed.... Far greater investment in education, do nothing and the costs further down the line will be much greater in worse health outcomes, unemployment and lower wages.
Tbh I struggle to see how anyone can say focus on the most able and leave everyone else where they are.