Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate

Why middle class schools? Entry based on merit not parents ability to afford a house in the catchment area.
Uniform cost? How is that different from any other uniform?
Uniform requirements from 2 of my local schools.

http://www.chasehigh.org/index.php/our- ... orm-guide/
http://www.suacademy.co.uk/students/school-uniform/

joelsim

I went to a Grammar after passing my 12+. We joined in 2nd form as there was no 1st form.

Pretty much everyone passed every O-Level, very rare that someone failed one.

Fees were £5 per annum.

Bus to school was free (if you lived more than 3 miles away).

The local school where you went if you failed your 12+ was atrocious.

Stevo_666

BigMat wrote:

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.

It's pretty obvious. Hypocrisy.

If you preach that grammars are bad and unfair while at the same time taking advantage of grammars then you dont have a leg to stand on. In particular politicians who are in a position to deny others the opportunities that their kids are enjoying.

But then again, 'do as I say, don't do as I do' is a not an unusual approach amongst leftie politicians.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Why middle class schools? Entry based on merit not parents ability to afford a house in the catchment area.
Uniform cost? How is that different from any other uniform?
Uniform requirements from 2 of my local schools.

http://www.chasehigh.org/index.php/our- ... orm-guide/
http://www.suacademy.co.uk/students/school-uniform/

GS are accessed by middle class kids whose parents can afford the tuition fees, got nothing to do with catchment area, as I said, a poorer kid was offered a place, couldn't go because of the extra costs.
My daughters school uni is half the cost of the nearest grammar and no additional transport costs.
I ve answered your point steve0 , stop being obtuse and start addressing what you think we should do with the kids who can't get into your wonder schools and answer why the tories are not coming fwd with plans either?

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Why middle class schools? Entry based on merit not parents ability to afford a house in the catchment area.
Uniform cost? How is that different from any other uniform?
Uniform requirements from 2 of my local schools.

http://www.chasehigh.org/index.php/our- ... orm-guide/
http://www.suacademy.co.uk/students/school-uniform/

GS are accessed by middle class kids whose parents can afford the tuition fees, got nothing to do with catchment area, as I said, a poorer kid was offered a place, couldn't go because of the extra costs.
My daughters school uni is half the cost of the nearest grammar and no additional transport costs.
I ve answered your point steve0 , stop being obtuse and start addressing what you think we should do with the kids who can't get into your wonder schools and answer why the tories are not coming fwd with plans either?

If the biggest drawback is the comparative cost of the uniform, I would suggest that that problem was far from insurmountable.
You appear to have a problem with parents trying to push their kids to further their education whether by paying for tutoring or by helping the kids themselves.. If it is a case that the brightest kids have to tread water until the others have caught up, what is the point of parents taking any interest. You seem to be content to reducing the level to the lowest common denominator. whereby the level is set to that of the kid whose parents don't give a flying fcuk, all in the name of 'equality'.

tangled_metal

My experience of grammar school was actually how wide the ability range really was. This was purely down to the effect of money. As I found out later on some got coached heavily to pass the 11+. This meant that there was a large number who shouldn't have been there if it was purely about annuity. I only realised this after starting a levels without a few mates who'd not even got the 5 GCSEs needed to be allowed into 6th form. One guy just scraped through and was allowed into 6th form on probation. He didn't last.

My point is that those who never made the grade to reach 6th form were all well off as in sons of local businessmen, lawyers, partners in larger local accountancy practises, doctors, etc. As someone who very nearly didn't get in through no fault or lack of ability If my own I was shocked at how the system was gamed. How many kids like me with among the better maths score on.the entrance exams who never made it into the school because these less able rich kids took up their place.

Apply that to other grammar schools across the country when TM sets it up. How many will get the undeserved benefits due to coaching and other things. BTW my mate who didn't get the GCSEs needed to stay on was in the prep school class who got coached on the exact entrance exam paper. I'm not kidding about that.

Top kids dumbing down to the lowest common denominator? What about abandoning the majority to inferior schools/system so that you can appeal to your core demographics with new grammars. Let's say you get your successful GS system, what would your suggestions be for the majority of kids to not to make it into GS? Ignore the side issue of not being able to select the best due to gaming the system or the prior failure to support kids from troubled backgrounds. What if there are so many kids with GS ability but not enough places? How about catering for bright and less bright kids in one school using the style of teaching appropriate to each kid in each subject purely according to ability in that subject. In my grammar school kids were good in different subjects but were still lumped together. I was good at science but not as good at languages. Others were the opposite. We were in the same class. In an ideal system I'd be in a lower stream for languages but higher for science. Not possible in grammar schools IME.

BTW let's continue not giving a flying fcuk about those kids from troubled background. We're doing that now and their outcomes are a hell of a lot worse than not.getting the extra 5% or so out of bright kids.

tangled_metal

One last point I'd make. If grammar schools results in single sex school we'll not send our kid there. Our local grammar schools are single sex. They're really good schools, the best in the area but we'll still not send our kid there. Our options are still reasonable with a high uptake too university from them. We're lucky perhaps. We're in a good position to support him though being highly educated and many partner was once a teacher too. IMHO parents do play a huge role in the success of children. I believe we're in a good position on that front.

Stevo_666

TM, your last post hits on a point the many lefties just don't get. Namely human nature and the parental instinct to do the best for their children. No amount of egalitarian pontificating or indeed policy will stop that. Those that want to help their kids will find a way, whether that is helping personally, hiring tutors, going private or taking any other steps needed to get their kids into something best suited to their needs. You would only stop that with some sort of totalitarian regime which nobody will ever vote for.

Which is why the idea of total equality in education is theoretical regardless of the system.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Why middle class schools? Entry based on merit not parents ability to afford a house in the catchment area.
Uniform cost? How is that different from any other uniform?
Uniform requirements from 2 of my local schools.

http://www.chasehigh.org/index.php/our- ... orm-guide/
http://www.suacademy.co.uk/students/school-uniform/

GS are accessed by middle class kids whose parents can afford the tuition fees, got nothing to do with catchment area, as I said, a poorer kid was offered a place, couldn't go because of the extra costs.
My daughters school uni is half the cost of the nearest grammar and no additional transport costs.
I ve answered your point steve0 , stop being obtuse and start addressing what you think we should do with the kids who can't get into your wonder schools and answer why the tories are not coming fwd with plans either?

If the biggest drawback is the comparative cost of the uniform, I would suggest that that problem was far from insurmountable.
You appear to have a problem with parents trying to push their kids to further their education whether by paying for tutoring or by helping the kids themselves.. If it is a case that the brightest kids have to tread water until the others have caught up, what is the point of parents taking any interest. You seem to be content to reducing the level to the lowest common denominator. whereby the level is set to that of the kid whose parents don't give a flying fcuk, all in the name of 'equality'.

Jeez bally, where have I said that???

The top set kids are already there, if we are to plug our skills shortages, stop the cycle of benefits dependency, then we need to focus attention on less academic kids AS WELL.

kingstongraham

Why is this thread all about people restating entrenched positions/rephrasing other people's positions to make them seem ridiculous on a government proposal now? Isn't there enough going on in Labour?

bigmat

Stevo 666 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

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.

It's pretty obvious. Hypocrisy.

If you preach that grammars are bad and unfair while at the same time taking advantage of grammars then you dont have a leg to stand on. In particular politicians who are in a position to deny others the opportunities that their kids are enjoying.

But then again, 'do as I say, don't do as I do' is a not an unusual approach amongst leftie politicians.

That's a lazy response. I object to the proposed grammar school policy. I don't object to people sending their kids to grammar schools if they are the best schools available. Same with public schools, there is a correlation between wealthy people moaning about paying tax, then spending a fortune in a way that only benefits them and their own. I don't like that. I have no objection to people sending their kids to whatever school they like though.

Some good posts above re why grammar schools look like being a step away from anything approaching equality, and this policy should at the very least be accompanied by something positive in relation to schools for everyone else, otherwise it just increases the gap between the fortunate and the unfortunate.

tangled_metal

Entrenched positions is the level of political debate. Throw in a few links to something that backs your view and job's a goodun. Keep repeating ad nauseam while ignoring what the opposing side is actually saying.

As I said it's the true level of political debate. My side's right, your side is wrong here is dubious or spurious evidence to back it up or divert the discussion away from your weak points.

If that doesn't work accuse, accuse, accuse away. BTW I'm right of centre but because I don't believe grammar schools are the best way forward I'm a leftie. My personal experience of a dodgy grammar school system means I'll take a lot of good evidence based arguments to convince me they're the best way. I'm still right of centre and this one issue doesn't make me a leftie. I couldn't even vote Labour as a tactical vote when Blair was in charge. He wasn't right wing enough for me! Corbyn should be uniting us but stupid ideology is stopping the Tories looking for new and better ways forward. Are we starting to go the way of Labour? Towards the 80s?

Tashman

I see Labour are now aggrieved that each MP will be expected to represent roughly the same number of constituents each, rather than the current lopsided boundaries in some areas. I'd always assumed that this was how the boundaries were set anyway so that each MP was an equal representation of the poopulation

ballysmate

Like TM, my position on GS is from experience. As I've said before, I went to a GS. Part way through, it was changed to a comprehensive. The difference was shocking. So I too would need a great deal of persuasion to change my mind.
People on here have argued that all kids should have an equal chance to attend a GS, a stance I agree with. Where my opinion differs is when it is argued that accommodation be made for people because they come from a background where factors have impact their development. The only way this can be achieved is lowering standards to accommodate the poorest performers, hence my remark to Mamba about LCDs
People have argued that some parents are in a better position to tutor their kids either by being financially better off or just by purely having better parenting skills. This again is true. But why should these kids be penalised for their parents doing their utmost to improve their kids chances. Again as I said to Mamba, what is the point of parents putting effort into improving their kids education at home if they arrive at school aged 11 and they have to tread water?
My default position is to reward excellence and endeavour.
Going back to my school life, there was a girl in my year who was particularly talented, especially at maths. She received one to one tuition at maths and passed her A level at some ridiculously young age, at least 2 years before the rest of us did O level. There was no jealousy or problem from the other kids. Alison was talented and we all accepted it as such and wished her luck.
As I said, reward excellence and endeavour.

Edit.
As I keep saying, the problem wasn't GS it is was the secondary moderns

ballysmate

Tashman wrote:

I see Labour are now aggrieved that each MP will be expected to represent roughly the same number of constituents each, rather than the current lopsided boundaries in some areas. I'd always assumed that this was how the boundaries were set anyway so that each MP was an equal representation of the poopulation

Has been the case for years that the boundaries are such that if Labour and Cons get the same number of votes, Labour would get a healthy majority at Westminster. Tories have to be significantly ahead in the polls to achieve even parity.

Stevo_666

BigMat wrote:

That's a lazy response. I object to the proposed grammar school policy. I don't object to people sending their kids to grammar schools if they are the best schools available. Same with public schools, there is a correlation between wealthy people moaning about paying tax, then spending a fortune in a way that only benefits them and their own. I don't like that. I have no objection to people sending their kids to whatever school they like though.

Some good posts above re why grammar schools look like being a step away from anything approaching equality, and this policy should at the very least be accompanied by something positive in relation to schools for everyone else, otherwise it just increases the gap between the fortunate and the unfortunate.

In your view lazy, but there is a lot of truth in it.

I cannot see how the current proposals, especially with their quotes for disadvantaged backgrounds, multi year entry and support for other local schools is an issue. We need to get away from one size fits all - it is clearly not appropriate. So far the only concrete proposals I see seem to be along the lines of 'spend more money on the current system' which discriminates by postcode and ability to afford houses in the right catchments.

There are plenty of stats to show how much tax the upper income brackets really do pay if you want some facts on that. Happy to repost.

Part of the problem is also that too many people confuse fairness and equality. Treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them equally.

[Edited for crap grammar...]

drlodge

Stevo 666 wrote:

I cannot see how the current proposals, especially with their quotes for disadvantaged backgrounds, multi year entry and support for other local schools is an issue. We need to get away from one size fits all - it is clearly not appropriate. So far the only concrete proposals I see seem to be along the lines of 'spend more money on the current system' which discriminates by postcode and ability to afford houses in the right catchments.

There are plenty of stats to show how much tax the upper income brackets really do pay if you want some facts on that. Happy to repost.

Part of the problem is also that too many people confuse fairness and equality. Treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them equally.

Is there an argument along the lines of - introduce a two tier system so the more able are able to achieve more (i.e. grammar schools) and the less able (comprehensives) also benefit as they no longer have such a wide ability range to teach?

Stevo_666

drlodge wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I cannot see how the current proposals, especially with their quotes for disadvantaged backgrounds, multi year entry and support for other local schools is an issue. We need to get away from one size fits all - it is clearly not appropriate. So far the only concrete proposals I see seem to be along the lines of 'spend more money on the current system' which discriminates by postcode and ability to afford houses in the right catchments.

There are plenty of stats to show how much tax the upper income brackets really do pay if you want some facts on that. Happy to repost.

Part of the problem is also that too many people confuse fairness and equality. Treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them equally.

Is there an argument along the lines of - introduce a two tier system so the more able are able to achieve more (i.e. grammar schools) and the less able (comprehensives) also benefit as they no longer have such a wide ability range to teach?

I would agree generally.

As has been said before, there are different needs for different kids and these require different approaches/resources and even syllabuses(?) that are appropriate for each. I certainly think my own kid benefits from this in her GS. While more work is needed to develop this, the concept is a good one IMO.

The split track secondary approach is something that Germany also does. I posted links a few pages back when some people claimed that we were unique in this respect. If I get time I may look at others but 1/1 isn't bad going.

bigmat

Stevo 666 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I cannot see how the current proposals, especially with their quotes for disadvantaged backgrounds, multi year entry and support for other local schools is an issue. We need to get away from one size fits all - it is clearly not appropriate. So far the only concrete proposals I see seem to be along the lines of 'spend more money on the current system' which discriminates by postcode and ability to afford houses in the right catchments.

There are plenty of stats to show how much tax the upper income brackets really do pay if you want some facts on that. Happy to repost.

Part of the problem is also that too many people confuse fairness and equality. Treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them equally.

Is there an argument along the lines of - introduce a two tier system so the more able are able to achieve more (i.e. grammar schools) and the less able (comprehensives) also benefit as they no longer have such a wide ability range to teach?

I would agree generally.

As has been said before, there are different needs for different kids and these require different approaches/resources and even syllabuses(?) that are appropriate for each. I certainly think my own kid benefits from this in her GS. While more work is needed to develop this, the concept is a good one IMO.

The split track secondary approach is something that Germany also does. I posted links a few pages back when some people claimed that we were unique in this respect. If I get time I may look at others but 1/1 isn't bad going.

Italy has a split between "academic" and more vocational secondary schools I think. I'm not against that, I just suspect that the current proposals will improve things for the academic high achievers and make things far worse for everyone else. Not good, and it feels like it is being rushed through to appease the right of the party and people who like looking back with rose-tinted glasses, rather than as part of a coherent plan to benefit all kids.

tangled_metal

Will these boundary changes mean Scottish, Welsh northern Ireland and English MPs will represent the same number of constituents or is it just evening out England and Wales?

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

Will these boundary changes mean Scottish, Welsh northern Ireland and English MPs will represent the same number of constituents or is it just evening out England and Wales?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32695546

The guardianistas are not very happy. At the risk of upsetting some on here, if Owen Jones is against it, it might be OK.

ballysmate

In my grammar school kids were good in different subjects but were still lumped together. I was good at science but not as good at languages. Others were the opposite. We were in the same class. In an ideal system I'd be in a lower stream for languages but higher for science. Not possible in grammar schools IME.

That is what happened in my GS at 14. We were streamed again on ability. Some went on to do O levels and the rest CSE, a lower qualification. But saying that, a Grade 1 CSE was equivalent to a C pass at O level.

ballysmate

Following the changes, Corbyn, Abbott and Thornberry will be scrapping over 2 seats as one of the N London seats go.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Will these boundary changes mean Scottish, Welsh northern Ireland and English MPs will represent the same number of constituents or is it just evening out England and Wales?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32695546

The guardianistas are not very happy. At the risk of upsetting some on here, if Owen Jones is against it, it might be OK.

Must be a good thing then.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Following the changes, Corbyn, Abbott and Thornberry will be scrapping over 2 seats as one of the N London seats go.

I think I know who is going to get screwed. The one who didn't get screwed by either of the others back in the 1980's

ballysmate

As she would say, "You're bring sexist!"
See her performance at the weekend? What a stupid mare.
Ooops :oops: Mustn't upset the newly returned PC champion.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I cannot see how the current proposals, especially with their quotes for disadvantaged backgrounds, multi year entry and support for other local schools is an issue. We need to get away from one size fits all - it is clearly not appropriate. So far the only concrete proposals I see seem to be along the lines of 'spend more money on the current system' which discriminates by postcode and ability to afford houses in the right catchments.

There are plenty of stats to show how much tax the upper income brackets really do pay if you want some facts on that. Happy to repost.

Part of the problem is also that too many people confuse fairness and equality. Treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them equally.

Is there an argument along the lines of - introduce a two tier system so the more able are able to achieve more (i.e. grammar schools) and the less able (comprehensives) also benefit as they no longer have such a wide ability range to teach?

I would agree generally.

As has been said before, there are different needs for different kids and these require different approaches/resources and even syllabuses(?) that are appropriate for each. I certainly think my own kid benefits from this in her GS. While more work is needed to develop this, the concept is a good one IMO.

The split track secondary approach is something that Germany also does. I posted links a few pages back when some people claimed that we were unique in this respect. If I get time I may look at others but 1/1 isn't bad going.

What your suggesting isn't what may is saying she will support.
Germany doesn't stream at 11 and it is state system available to all with properly funded vocational training, we are no where near this, so no one still does as we do.

Stevo_666

Ours isnastate system available to all...

You original point was that no other countries have separate secondary education streams. Rubbish
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education
Apart from Germany, we also have Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, Singapore, Denmark, Czech Republic, to name but a few.

Time to admit you're wrong and move on

wallace_and_gromit

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Will these boundary changes mean Scottish, Welsh northern Ireland and English MPs will represent the same number of constituents or is it just evening out England and Wales?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32695546

The guardianistas are not very happy. At the risk of upsetting some on here, if Owen Jones is against it, it might be OK.

Tristram Rhyming Slang is also up in arms. Not only rhetorically asking if "Labour seats" (funny = I thought all seats could be contested and won by anyone who appealed to the voters) are to be abolished but claiming that 2m recently registered voters are to be disenfranchised. He appears to have forgotten that the revised boundaries are indeed based on slightly out of date registered voter data, but come the next election, the recently registered will still be able to vote!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... y-seats-mp

Joking aside, it's hard to argue with the idea that constituencies should be roughly the same size in terms of numbers of potential voters. It's not popular with Labour as they generally benefit from population drift as folk move out of cities (traditional Labour areas) into more rural areas. Thus, Labour constituencies tend to get smaller over time and revised boundaries tend to favour the Tories by restoring equality. The situation has been made worse this time by the Lib Dems refusal to agree to the proposed changes in 2011 when in coalition. Had these gone through, the next change would have had a smaller impact.

Stevo_666

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Will these boundary changes mean Scottish, Welsh northern Ireland and English MPs will represent the same number of constituents or is it just evening out England and Wales?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32695546

The guardianistas are not very happy. At the risk of upsetting some on here, if Owen Jones is against it, it might be OK.

Tristram Rhyming Slang is also up in arms. Not only rhetorically asking if "Labour seats" (funny = I thought all seats could be contested and won by anyone who appealed to the voters) are to be abolished but claiming that 2m recently registered voters are to be disenfranchised. He appears to have forgotten that the revised boundaries are indeed based on slightly out of date registered voter data, but come the next election, the recently registered will still be able to vote!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... y-seats-mp

Joking aside, it's hard to argue with the idea that constituencies should be roughly the same size in terms of numbers of potential voters. It's not popular with Labour as they generally benefit from population drift as folk move out of cities (traditional Labour areas) into more rural areas. Thus, Labour constituencies tend to get smaller over time and revised boundaries tend to favour the Tories by restoring equality. The situation has been made worse this time by the Lib Dems refusal to agree to the proposed changes in 2011 when in coalition. Had these gone through, the next change would have had a smaller impact.

Have to agree, the sympathy meter is not really flickering here. TBH it probably won't affect the next GE result, but it will make it fairer and show up just how popular New Old Labour are with the electorate.