Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tangled_metal

What is wrong with wanting the best for your children. If there isn't a good grammar school in the upmarket area you live then why not send your little one to a good private school? You really want to bring every kid down to the lowest denominator? Hypocrite!

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

See that Shami has done an Abbott regarding her kids schooling.

Must have been a field day for body language experts - all that blinking and looking down to the left.

But it's OK because she also has a big expensive house while living near homeless people.

Stevo_666

Good old leftie hypocrisy - such a rich vein to be mined, especially when it comes to education. Classic case of 'Do as I say, don't do as I do'.

I wonder whether Jezza would have risen to be leader of the Labour party without his grammar school education?

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

I'm praying for a Lab/LD alliance. Unlikely I know.

The gap in policy and philosophy is too large. That would only happen if there is a centre left breakaway group from Labour.

I fear you're very right.

I saw somewhere (might have been the BBC new website) that Tony Blair was considering a return to front line politics. Possibly indicative of the dire straits that the more moderate wing of Labour find themselves in, but if there is any truth in it, that might indicate a split is on the cards as it is hard to see how TB would come back (or be allowed back) in to the current hard left run Labour party.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Good old leftie hypocrisy - such a rich vein to be mined, especially when it comes to education. Classic case of 'Do as I say, don't do as I do'.

I wonder whether Jezza would have risen to be leader of the Labour party without his grammar school education?

You always come out with that, and you never really understand it.

BECAUSE Grammar schools advantage some at the expense of others, they are, by definition, going to produce more students who end up at the sharp end of society. That's the entire point. If it takes a grammar school to get into a position of power, then it's reducing opportunities for those who don't.

It's such an irritating argument. Just because something is advantageous to you, doesn't mean it's advantageous to broader society. That's doubly the case when you need to have that advantage to enact the change to change it.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Good old leftie hypocrisy - such a rich vein to be mined, especially when it comes to education. Classic case of 'Do as I say, don't do as I do'.

I wonder whether Jezza would have risen to be leader of the Labour party without his grammar school education?

You always come out with that, and you never really understand it.

BECAUSE Grammar schools advantage some at the expense of others, they are, by definition, going to produce more students who end up at the sharp end of society. That's the entire point. If it takes a grammar school to get into a position of power, then it's reducing opportunities for those who don't.

It's such an irritating argument. Just because something is advantageous to you, doesn't mean it's advantageous to broader society. That's doubly the case when you need to have that advantage to enact the change to change it.

We've already had this debate. Part of the problem is there are not enough of them - more grammars means more kids benefit from them. Although as mentioned before, one size does not fit all and a grammar education isn't appropriate for all.

I've seen how my kids performance has improved in a grammar compared to when she was not. Personally I'm very happy but she can't be a unique case and the feedback from other parents bears this out.

People who try to drag others down are the ones who don't understand and I'm not about to let some misguided, self righteous do-gooders ruin it for my kid. (Parental instinct is very strong you see - exactly why Abbott and Shami did what they did). One day you will understand

rick_chasey

If you want the grammar school debate - what, do you see, as the difference between streaming in a comp and a grammar school in terms of advantages for the average child?

pinno

...because we cannot keep lowering everything to the lowest common denominator. We need a meritocracy to prevail.

Too many disruptive children in amongst the harder workers.
Not enough kids following technical vocations - Comps can fill that gap.
Too many being pushed (a La Blairist policy) into Mickey Mouse degrees thereby lowering the value of the degree.

The practicalities of delivering a two tier system and the arguments that some children are going to have a better education according to post code prior to sitting an 11+ as well as the more well off have the opportunity to afford extra tuition aside, is there any moral reason why (given a fair distribution of resources) we shouldn't cater for both academic pupils and less academic pupils?
If the above is the reason why we shouldn't have Grammar schools, then the argument is flawed. I accept that parental concerns would be that Comprehensives in conjunction with Grammar schools may not get the quality of teachers or the same resources but it doesn't stop people excelling in that environment and it may maximise those who cannot possibly go on to Higher education.

The problem with the current system is that it's a lottery. Some Comps are good, some are bad and some Grammar schools aren't producing the expected results. If you are well off, you are more likely to go private to ensure progression. It's a system that's not particularly fair but understandable.

Ultimately, there isn't a cohesive education policy regarding present and future skills need. If that's remains the root problem in rolling out a two tier system, it won't work.
It would be much better to take the Education system totally out of political hands and run it by committee. Same goes for the NHS.

Maybe you, Rick Chasey, had the benefit of an education in Holland and perhaps this clouds your perception of our somewhat failing education system. I don't know. Correct me if i'm wrong.

rick_chasey

Educated in a comp mate.

I got streamed, so all the smart/hard working kids ended up in the top sets, the more distruptive/thick kids in the lower sets.

Meanwhile, I learned to get on with all walks of life.

What about streaming is so different to a grammar school? Apart from the fact you spent your lunch times having to get on with people of all types, not just smarter people?

pinno

I got educated in a Comp and it was hell. I would have probably passed an 11+ but there wasn't a Grammar school in this area.
There wasn't quite the separation of the good and the bad prior to O Grades from 14, so I was, like the rest, thrown in with the disruptive lot.

"Meanwhile, I learned to get on with all walks of life. "

No idea what that means. Prior to moving to the UK, I was in a multi-national school. 30% White European, 20% indigenous and the rest from all over the world.

rick_chasey

Yeah, you're probably a bit older than me.

The advantage of streams is if you are strong in one area; say maths, but weak in another; english they can account for that, so you're always with kids of a similar ability; which is easier to teach.

The other advantage is, as we all know, kids develop their skills at different speeds and times, so kids can move between sets if things improve/worsen.

My mate who ended up with a 1st in Chemistry from Oxford and did a PhD in it is by all accounts very smart, but always did badly in all tests (including science) until he hit about 14. Then he started picking things up and ended up top set in everything bar English where he was 2nd set.

That mobility is useful.


I can't see how having a hard delineation at 11 is more advantageous than that?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

What about streaming is so different to a grammar school? Apart from the fact you spent your lunch times having to get on with people of all types, not just smarter people?

My school only streamed people in the 4th and 5th year and only then in the key subjects. No idea if things have changed but by that age some kids had already been led astray or had life bullied out of them.

I imagine some people feel that in grammar schools the early selection would have prevented these issues.

I'm completely against them though because 11 is too young to write someone off and they just favour parents willing / able to pay for extra-curricular lessons. My dad, for example, was finally told after 4 years in a secondary modern that he should be in a grammar school - by that point it was quite tricky to catch up.

rick_chasey

I was streamed from 12yrs old in all the key subjects.

In the non-key subjects where the classes weren't big enough we naturally weren't, but broadly speaking the smarter kids just got given different work.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Educated in a comp mate.

I got streamed, so all the smart/hard working kids ended up in the top sets, the more distruptive/thick kids in the lower sets.

Meanwhile, I learned to get on with all walks of life.

What about streaming is so different to a grammar school? Apart from the fact you spent your lunch times having to get on with people of all types, not just smarter people?

If streaming was applied from the get go and was shown to work then fine. Grammars are just a further step in streaming and they seem to work very well from what I see - better than comps. Whatever the reason they work very well and there should be more of them for that reason.

I see you are not against streaming by academic ability so don't really understand your objection to what appears to be simply a more effective form of streaming.

On a practical and real life level though, we should have this conversation when you have school age kids. All the principles in the world go out the window when it is a question of giving your kids the best chance in life. Which is why Abbott and Chakrabarti have done what they have done. And if there is a good GS in your area when your time comes, you probably will as well.

Fortunately by time there are possibly mini Chaseys around, it is highly likely that there will be more grammars

Stevo_666

Good article. Nail. Head.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/shami-chakrabarti-joins-ranks-left-wing-hypocrites/

"Congratulations to Shami – sorry Baroness! – Chakrabarti for joining the exciting, ever-growing pantheon of ultra-left wing metropolitan Labour hypocrites. Her dameship was appearing on the Godawful Peston on Sunday show. Asked why she opposed selection and grammar schools while at the same time sending her brat to the selective, £18,000 per year, Dulwich College, she said:

‘I live in a nice big house, and eat nice food, and my neighbours are homeless, and go to food banks. Des that make me a hypocrite, or does it make me someone who is trying to do best, not just for my own family, but for other people’s families too?’
Yes, of course it makes you a hypocrite, you hypocrite. And your comparison is absurd. If you were actively trying to stop your neighbours being able to afford living in a two million quid house, while you lived in one yourself, then you’d be a hypocrite in that regard too. Instead, you are trying to stop people less fortunate than yourself from getting the best possible education for their children. And you know that selection will lead to the best possible education. Because you chose it for your own child. Comprenez?

She also lamented the misery that selective school tests imposed on children. Then why did you put your own child through it? Shami joins the wonderful Diane Abbott, who opposes selection but sent her brat to the private City of London school, and Emily Thornberry, who opposes selection, and sent her brat to the partially selective Dame Alice Owens School, fourteen miles from her home. The more metro left you are, the more likely you are to be a hypocrite."

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Educated in a comp mate.

I got streamed, so all the smart/hard working kids ended up in the top sets, the more distruptive/thick kids in the lower sets.

Meanwhile, I learned to get on with all walks of life.

What about streaming is so different to a grammar school? Apart from the fact you spent your lunch times having to get on with people of all types, not just smarter people?

If streaming was applied from the get go and was shown to work then fine. Grammars are just a further step in streaming and they seem to work very well from what I see - better than comps. Whatever the reason they work very well and there should be more of them for that reason.

I see you are not against streaming by academic ability so don't really understand your objection to what appears to be simply a more effective form of streaming.

I've already explained why it's less effective. I.e. grammar schools pick one point, across all subjects to decide if you make it or not.

Streaming at comps allows for flexibility and more mobility.

It also means you learn to get on with all types people rather than certain types which, in my opinion anyway is one of the most important parts of school - learning to get on in the world.

My guess is people actually like grammar schools because they offer some way of keeping the riff raff out without any of the cost...!

tangled_metal

Grammar school is streaming at age 11. There's no upwards or downwards movement based on performance. That is their biggest failing.

Comprehensives were never set up. To work comprehensives need streaming indeed schools need streaming from primary school age. Without streaming of all abilities in one institution that enables reassessment based purely on equal opportunity academic performance you get a snapshot of ability to develop based on that moment in time. Kids develop differently at different rates. I developed quickly from a young age. Others are later but still have the ability to catch up if given a chance. Grammar schools take that chance away.

BTW UK education system never had a joined up streaming system. If we did I'm certain you'd get better results than grammar school and secondary modern school systems.

Stevo, if the education system had full streaming throughout school would you consider that as a better system of education?

Stevo_666

We've already had this debate once. My point is about leftie hypocrisy in education nicely summed up by the article I posted above. Your thoughts?

(Clearly those Labour politicians don't think comps are the way to go as they have not chosen that for their own kids )

rick_chasey

Stevo - you're familiar with the Tu Quoque fallacy, presumably?

Grammar schooled and all that. Though I did Latin in my comp too

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo - you're familiar with the Tu Quoque fallacy, presumably?

Grammar schooled and all that. Though I did Latin in my comp too

Nope.

Just interested in your thoughts on leftie hypocrisy.

rick_chasey

maybe you should: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

maybe you should: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

That's OK ta. Now ATFQ

rick_chasey

I see no point since it's a logical fallacy.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I see no point since it's a logical fallacy.

What is? I am only trying to demonstate leftie hypocrisy. How is that a logical fallacy?

Now third time of asking...as you seem to be very keen to divert.

Stevo_666

Just had a little read and as expected, it is irrelevant. I'm not trying to demonstrate a point by showing the inconsistency of the proponents actions with their argument. I'm just trying to show thay are bloody hypocrites.

Isn't it terrible when someone tries to be a smartarse and gets it completely wrong Assumption, as they say, is the mother of all f*** ups.

TheBigBean

I think the point is that you can be hypocritical whilst also holding a valid opinion. A doctor that smokes would be a good example.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Just had a little read and as expected, it is irrelevant. I'm not trying to demonstrate a point by showing the inconsistency of the proponents actions with their argument. I'm just trying to show thay are bloody hypocrites.

Isn't it terrible when someone tries to be a smartarse and gets it completely wrong Assumption, as they say, is the mother of all f*** ups.

you learn something new every day - if I had a clue how to pronounce it I would be using this

"It is clear that a tu quoque response to an accusation can never refute the accusation. Consider the following:
Wilma: You cheated on your income tax. Don't you realize that's wrong?
Walter: Hey, wait a minute. You cheated on your income tax last year. Or have you forgotten about that?
Walter may be correct in his counter-accusation, but that does not show that Wilma's accusation is false."
(William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery, Critical Thinking, 5th ed. Broadview, 2008)

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

I think the point is that you can be hypocritical whilst also holding a valid opinion. A doctor that smokes would be a good example.

It is certainly possible and we've already had the argument on selective education.

However in this case someone was trying to disprove something that was not trying to be proved in the first place. Maybe we should call it the 'You cocque fallacy'

tangled_metal

Hypocritical of Abbott? She's a career politician, of course she's a hypocrite, liar and untrustworthy. Gosh! What a surprise! What is the significance of that fact? Oh yes, grammar schools are great and a leftie paying for their kids to go through private schooling proves it. Proving Abbott made an "indefensible" decision over the schooling of her kid has no bearing on comprehensive schooling only a comment on the quality in her neighborhood Hackney. Sort out the comprehensive school system and there'll be no need for grammar schools. Pipe dream though since giving poor areas good schools costs money which righties won't spend and lefties who might gain power (centre left variety of lefties) tend to ape righties spending plans until they win a second general election at least.

BTW we had the grammar school discussion earlier although I felt it was not a discussion or debate but statements of two different, entrenched views. No debate there!

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I see no point since it's a logical fallacy.

What is? I am only trying to demonstate leftie hypocrisy. How is that a logical fallacy?

Now third time of asking...as you seem to be very keen to divert.

Hypocrisy is pretty universal. Some left wing politicians seem to forget their principles when it comes to applying for schools, just as plenty of right wing politicians are happy to make exceptions for their own personal behaviour. I'm sure most can remember the Major government and its Back to Basics campaign for a return to traditional family values. Another example would be those that decry people 'living off the state' whilst milking agricultural subsidies. If you want to rule out everyone who's ever been a bit hypocritical, there'd be no-one left.