Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Sorry I find the class idea of genetic selection not completely believable. It fits in with people who have certain ideologies though. Nice theory to support GS perhaps but I doubt it's genetic. The heredity is possibly down to external factors relating to income / social level. If a foetus isn't getting the best it probably won't develop to the best. I don't know but just showing a statistical link is just about the lowest scientific level of evidence. Show the mechanism.

Seems to be pretty well established to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Not sure about the mechanism, but probably similar to the way that other characteristics are passed down from parents to children, something that clearly occurs. You do not need to prove the mechanism to demonstrate that something happens.

tangled_metal

Heredity or is that.heredity a case of the conditions being heredity? You're poor with bad diet so the next generation was conceived through to birth and beyond not getting what is needed for healthy development. IQ gets affected. Is that heredity situation due to genetics being passed down or is it down to the conditions of the poor passing down low IQ. Take the poor out of poverty would a few generations end up with no difference in IQ inherited than rich people, assuming both have the same conditions.

Poverty and being poor is often a vicious circle where kids follow parents onwards and onwards. It takes a lot to change society to end this. Much easier to give grammar schools to the middle classes so they can stay in the middle class. Don't want to have downwards mobility do we. You know what, of all schools state funded were equally bad you'd have the middle classes kicking up a fuss that their kids were being failed. Imagine bankers, doctors and other professionals seeing their kids going to a failing school and not getting their stacks of a levels and every to university. Those parents seeing their kids feeling like they had no future other than living in sink estates possibly dropping into criminality. Or worse. Hmmm! I doubt Tories would allow that to happen to their support base. I doubt even Labour would allow that. They are allowing that for a lot of our nation's future just not the middle classes. Accident of birth is as important now as on Victorian times I reckon

tangled_metal

Vocational qualifications for those who didn't reach the standard at age 11.

Radical thought, grammar school education within a school that also offers vocational courses where the kids get the education appropriate to their abilities. Instead of separate schools with separation of two sets of kids based on ability that has come out at one age you have the ability to change your mind about a kid's ability throughout the time at school.

I have another issue with selection at 11 is the real age of kids. We have a system where school starts in September of the academic/school year in which the child turns 5. This presents the prospect that a kid could be nearly 5 or only just 4. That's kids in the same year with a full 12 months difference in age. How long before this age difference no longer makes a difference? If it's close to the 11+ then could you write off a kid before he/she had matured enough to take it? Not sure but I've been talking about starting school of late because I have a kid approaching that age.

Stevo_666

Like I said above, if grammar schools are no better than comps as many on here are claiming what's the fuss about? Let them be set up, there's no advantage to be had if some on here are to be believed

As for your other idea, we had streaming when I was at schools. Not fundamentally different and I'm not opposed to that as it makes sense.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Who said anything about writing off those who are not in grammars? Many on here have been at pains to claim that comps are not inferior to grammars. If that is right, what's the problem? Can't have it both ways...

TBH if there is one change that should be made it should be to increase vocational training in comps. The same people who defend comps also bemoan out lack of trade type skills. If so, this is a sensible way to fill that gap.

You ve changed your tune, but well done ! your earlier posts suggested nothing of the sort.

No-one has said the brightest should nt be given max support, just that ALL should get max support, as been said 11 is no age to be pushing someone into vocational training only.

the educational reforms pushed by all governments, do not raise standards, let alone get more good vocational training.

tangled_metal

Stevo talking sense. No objection to streaming within the same school. Whatever you call it is irrelevant.

BTW there's some benefit between those with and without a higher academic ability having contact. I remember my primary school days when streaming was within the same class through separation into tables based on ability. I got moved up to the top table in my final year and that encouragement brought my ability out that had been hidden from the school. I got my 11+ passed and into an independent grammar school (fee paying grammar school). I got a whole bunch of GCSE, a levels and degrees out of that one positive example of streaming in primary school. I'd been written off as average by the school but my parents knew better.

Streaming also happened in my independent school it was just a case of separating out the top 1% from the top 1 to 2% apparently. Well they had to keep us no hopers away from the cream of society.

ballysmate

Still on the subject of schools, could we stop the farce of faith schools. School should be a place of learning not worship.

ballysmate

On the subject of social mobility, I find this objectionable if true. We have all become accustomed to the irrelevant questions on ethnicity and disability when applying for all sorts of things, so this may just be seen as an extension.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... class.html

drlodge

Ballysmate wrote:

On the subject of social mobility, I find this objectionable if true. We have all become accustomed to the irrelevant questions on ethnicity and disability when applying for all sorts of things, so this may just be seen as an extension.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... class.html

Yes, I do wish we could scrap faith schools, at least the selection based on a kid's parents' so called beliefs.

I'm just checking my white middle class privilege. A very interesting and enlightening podcast by Sam Harris dealing with Racism and violence in America. Really got to make me think. https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/ ... in-america

tangled_metal

Aah! Positive discrimination causes discrimination against middle class and above. Agree totally, discrimination isn't positive at all. Best keep the status quo and let the current systems discriminate in favour of middle classes and above.

Sorry but as much as I loathe positive discrimination I feel there's a lot of discrimination going on against so many (black, poor working class, immigrants, etc.) that perhaps, just perhaps, it might need discrimination against those who are favoured by the status quo to try and even things out across society as a whole. Privilege begets privilege, needs shaking up a bit.

ballysmate

Tangled Metal wrote:

Aah! Positive discrimination causes discrimination against middle class and above. Agree totally, discrimination isn't positive at all. Best keep the status quo and let the current systems discriminate in favour of middle classes and above.

Sorry but as much as I loathe positive discrimination I feel there's a lot of discrimination going on against so many (black, poor working class, immigrants, etc.) that perhaps, just perhaps, it might need discrimination against those who are favoured by the status quo to try and even things out across society as a whole. Privilege begets privilege, needs shaking up a bit.

Yes, If one of my kids was undergoing brain surgery, I would find it most reassuring that the surgeon had been appointed because of his colour/ background/ upbringing or whatever, rather than his talent. ( I know, straw man argument )

But seriously, I am 100% in favour of appointments being made on ability, whatever the profession. Otherwise, just as you seemed to advocate in the school discussion, you are reducing the standards in that field.

tangled_metal

What if the best man/woman wasn't available because of discrimination in the system meant they never got to a good school/university to be available? That could easily be the case, the one person who might have been able to carry out a successful surgery never got the chance to train. You don't think this is a possibility?

We can all cone up with hypotheticals. I agree with no discrimination but we're nowhere near that stage. This so called positive discrimination could quite possibly be doing more to address the more common discriminations than other measures. I just don't agree with it and would rather find other means. However the status quo does need changing.

tangled_metal

I'm not advocating reducing standards in the school discussion. I'm advocating the idea that splitting off a minority who indicate academic ability in.a single day of high pressure trying at about 10 to 11 years old Isn't the best way to ensure all kids achieve according to their ability. If my view of streaming kids in a good universal high school such that you can adjust the streaming as the kids develop academically no matter what age it happens is lowering standards I'd be very surprised. I believe in streaming within state education based on ability without any other social factors coming into play. With the idea that your stream can change based on the evidence of performance results. Pupils can go up and down. Truth it's grammar schools rarely kick out underperforming kids and even rarer take on new kids that perform better later on in.life. The latter happened once in my school when a kid came in from a local comprehensive because his results were very good indeed. He even got a full scholarship because his parents were unable to pay the fees (independent grammar school with fees).

ballysmate

Tangled Metal wrote:

Aah! Positive discrimination causes discrimination against middle class and above. Agree totally, discrimination isn't positive at all. Best keep the status quo and let the current systems discriminate in favour of middle classes and above.

Sorry but as much as I loathe positive discrimination I feel there's a lot of discrimination going on against so many (black, poor working class, immigrants, etc.) that perhaps, just perhaps, it might need discrimination against those who are favoured by the status quo to try and even things out across society as a whole. Privilege begets privilege, needs shaking up a bit.

If I owned a business, was running a sports team or whatever, I would be looking to appoint the best people I could get. My only concern would be their suitability. The factors behind why a candidate had become most suitable would not be my concern. They are the best candidate, end of.
Business, like sport, is a results business. The best person should be selected on merit, regardless of their path through life.

florerider

Ballysmate wrote:

On the subject of social mobility, I find this objectionable if true. We have all become accustomed to the irrelevant questions on ethnicity and disability when applying for all sorts of things, so this may just be seen as an extension.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... class.html

Odd that everyone sees it that way - how would you deal with an accusation of being discriminatory in appointing only white middle class person to a government post if only white middle class people applied and you had no data to show that? How can organisations show they are not discriminating without collecting the information to show they are not?

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Aah! Positive discrimination causes discrimination against middle class and above. Agree totally, discrimination isn't positive at all. Best keep the status quo and let the current systems discriminate in favour of middle classes and above.

Sorry but as much as I loathe positive discrimination I feel there's a lot of discrimination going on against so many (black, poor working class, immigrants, etc.) that perhaps, just perhaps, it might need discrimination against those who are favoured by the status quo to try and even things out across society as a whole. Privilege begets privilege, needs shaking up a bit.

If I owned a business, was running a sports team or whatever, I would be looking to appoint the best people I could get. My only concern would be their suitability. The factors behind why a candidate had become most suitable would not be my concern. They are the best candidate, end of.
Business, like sport, is a results business. The best person should be selected on merit, regardless of their path through life.

What do you think about something like the Rooney rule?

bobmcstuff

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm not advocating reducing standards in the school discussion. I'm advocating the idea that splitting off a minority who indicate academic ability in.a single day of high pressure trying at about 10 to 11 years old Isn't the best way to ensure all kids achieve according to their ability. If my view of streaming kids in a good universal high school such that you can adjust the streaming as the kids develop academically no matter what age it happens is lowering standards I'd be very surprised. I believe in streaming within state education based on ability without any other social factors coming into play. With the idea that your stream can change based on the evidence of performance results. Pupils can go up and down. Truth it's grammar schools rarely kick out underperforming kids and even rarer take on new kids that perform better later on in.life. The latter happened once in my school when a kid came in from a local comprehensive because his results were very good indeed. He even got a full scholarship because his parents were unable to pay the fees (independent grammar school with fees).

+1

ballysmate

Rooney rule?
I am against tokenism. As I said, appoint the best candidate. No other factors to consider.
If someone is qualified for a role and has potential to fill any vacancy, they should make any shortlist, regardless of any other factors.
If they don't meet the criteria, they don't. Don't have a token black, Asian, woman or man if they are not there by merit.
Simples.

ballysmate

florerider wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

On the subject of social mobility, I find this objectionable if true. We have all become accustomed to the irrelevant questions on ethnicity and disability when applying for all sorts of things, so this may just be seen as an extension.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... class.html

Odd that everyone sees it that way - how would you deal with an accusation of being discriminatory in appointing only white middle class person to a government post if only white middle class people applied and you had no data to show that? How can organisations show they are not discriminating without collecting the information to show they are not?

So I should provide all this info just so that some dept or company can cover its ar5e against any spurious complaints of discrimination?

ballysmate

Tangledmetal

I believe in streaming within state education based on ability without any other social factors coming into play.

How do you measure that then?
Come exam time, do you have a sliding scale whereby kids from rich families get penalised percentage points for their parents' wealth. Perhaps 1% penalty for every £1k above 20k that their parents earn?
Perhaps kids from 1 parent families could have 10% added to their results.?

I understand and appreciate your goal, but there is no yardstick you could use to achieve your Utopian aim.
At the end of the day with education, any measurement tests what you know and there is no mechanism that takes into account how you have acquired that level of knowledge.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Tangledmetal

I believe in streaming within state education based on ability without any other social factors coming into play.

How do you measure that then?
Come exam time, do you have a sliding scale whereby kids from rich families get penalised percentage points for their parents' wealth. Perhaps 1% penalty for every £1k above 20k that their parents earn?
Perhaps kids from 1 parent families could have 10% added to their results.?

I understand and appreciate your goal, but there is no yardstick you could use to achieve your Utopian aim.
At the end of the day with education, any measurement tests what you know and there is no mechanism that takes into account how you have acquired that level of knowledge.

its not Utopia to try and help the poorest and those without "pushy" parents to achieve their potential, many countries way above us in educational standards, manage without grammars or private schools.
we can do this without damaging the chances of the naturally gifted or those with money and/or pushy parents, everyone has talent, we as a nation would do far better if we started to try and unlock it.

ballysmate

Mamba, perhaps you know of a way to stream kids, taking into account all social factors to create TM's level playing field?

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo talking sense. No objection to streaming within the same school. Whatever you call it is irrelevant.

BTW there's some benefit between those with and without a higher academic ability having contact. I remember my primary school days when streaming was within the same class through separation into tables based on ability. I got moved up to the top table in my final year and that encouragement brought my ability out that had been hidden from the school. I got my 11+ passed and into an independent grammar school (fee paying grammar school). I got a whole bunch of GCSE, a levels and degrees out of that one positive example of streaming in primary school. I'd been written off as average by the school but my parents knew better.

Streaming also happened in my independent school it was just a case of separating out the top 1% from the top 1 to 2% apparently. Well they had to keep us no hopers away from the cream of society.

I'll take that as a compliment. ..

The point with streaming and with grammars as form of streaming is that it helps those with potential to achieve it. To put this into real life situations (which has been mentioned before on this thread) is that without it you get the brighter and harder working kids often have battle with having kids in the class who don't want to learn/disrupt class; or worse, get bullied for being clever or hard working. Not fair is it, being dragged down like that.

I saw that at first hand and had to put up with it until I wanted a couple of the worst offenders. Why should I have losers like that spoil my chances?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba, perhaps you know of a way to stream kids, taking into account all social factors to create TM's level playing field?

Bally, its futile. This is classic leftiebollox whingeing about how unfair life is and totally ignoring the fact that it is human nature to do what you can to give your kids the best chance in life. No amount of well meaning or more likely spiteful socialist interference will ever stop that. To be frank, if you put in the effort to help your kids then you deserve a bit of payback. Same principle as so many other things in life.

Mamba can ask Diane Abbott if he has any doubts about this

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba, perhaps you know of a way to stream kids, taking into account all social factors to create TM's level playing field?

Bally, its futile. This is classic leftiebollox whingeing about how unfair life is and totally ignoring the fact that it is human nature to do what you can to give your kids the best chance in life. No amount of well meaning or more likely spiteful socialist interference will ever stop that. To be frank, if you put in the effort to help your kids then you deserve a bit of payback. Same principle as so many other things in life.

Mamba can ask Diane Abbott if he has any doubts about this

lol! late drinking again Steve0 ?
i dont know you and i certainly wouldnt want too, TM wants a level playing field, you dont, says it all really.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba, perhaps you know of a way to stream kids, taking into account all social factors to create TM's level playing field?

i dont understand this bally, what is wrong with attempting to help those from poorer backgrounds? or do you just want to keep people in their social class? i dont think you do, or if so, then we ll carry on having super high levels of immigration to fill our skills shortages.

Streaming within Comps has worked for decades, teachers access, they know the kids, its not rocket science, is it perfect, no, is it better than grammars and fxxk everyone else? yes, just needs more funding to get smaller classes, better equipment and better trained and more teachers.

tangled_metal

Utopian dream? Hmmm! In a Tory led world yes a dream.

Simply put start young, encourage and TBH if parents don't do a good job.it's down to teachers to fill the gap. Or schools by providing additional help such as out of hours facilities to provide somewhere to do homework for example. I don't know the answers but start early to get the best out of kids. If you can do that then there's a better chance of finding and progressing talent.

Not one selection at an educationally irrelevant age but selection throughout school life. But it's a better description to say the teachers should be assessing their kids all the time so they're all in the best class for their ability and needs. In my case decades ago in my last year of primary school I got a random bump into the top table/stream in the class. That got me motivated and I took to learning such that my results turned around completely. Could try harder and C for attainment/D for effort I got A/A. I.became academically competitive. This is what I'd want, the ability for a teacher to spot talent that's sometimes well hidden. Then get it out and streaming to get similar abilities together. I.believe competition.within these streams is also good. But writing off kids completely like the stupid 11+ cutoff isn't about competition academically. There's no way to move up from secondary modern later on. Grammar school kids who later struggle have no way down neither. I saw this at my independent GS. Kids got in through pushy parents if you like. They struggled all the way through. One of them was a good mate. He shouldn't have been in such a hothouse but vocational training would have got the best out of him. 7 years of struggle, bottom of class and stress for what? 3 GCSE at the absolute lowest grade, the one they give.you when you've really failed. Another guy left at 16 with the same 3 low grades. Ended up in army as the only positive thing left open to him. Became an explosives specialist, which was appropriate due to his arsonist tendencies at school.

You see I've experienced good examples of things that IMHO need to be done and more. I've been also seen examples where GS selection failed but streaming within a universal school system could have helped. IMHO those failed kids at my school (one being my friend) could have remained in the same school but move down a stream or two. That lets them have the teaching style to develop the best out of them (vocational nearer the end of school). It also allows the bright to be wholly among equals who challenge them. I think most who support GS want the latter but ignore the benefits of the first situation where kids move up and down.

BTW pushing your kids with coaching to the 11+ exam IMHO is not always in their best interests. Perhaps the test should be some IQ based test such that ability that's hidden is found done early before the rot had set into the kid whose circumstances don't help their education

BTW if that's utopia or a dream then so be it. Why can't we want the best for all kids. Shame on us for just bothering with the elite through GS.

ballysmate

Mamba,I have said several times on here that the problem wasn't with GS it was with the secondary moderns. I have no desire to keep people in any class. Identify the brightest kids and push them to their potential in GS.
Stream the kids in secondary moderns, giving the kids an education to suit their abilities.
TM wants to take social factors into the equation when streaming kids, but as I stated above, there is no mechanism to measure these and adjust results accordingly.
It is not a case of GS and fxxk everyone else. But it is a fact of life that everyone is assessed on their abilities and achievements throughout their lives. Exam results, application forms, interviews, even driving tests. That's the way of the world.
Comps tend to drag the brightest down rather than give the less capable a leg up.

tangled_metal

Lifelong Tory. I don't see a level playing field in terms of providing the best education style to suit all kids within one school as leftiebollox. I see it as something all should want for their kids.

So Steve or Bally if your kid fails 11+ despite your pushing, coaching lessons and best wishes what next for them? Any way back for them in this hypothetical case? Assume not the money for independent school or your kid unable to.benefit even out you could afford it. Bet you'd want a good school to offer education suited to junior. Vocational that gets them into work and a skill for life? Or ditched into failing comprehensive because the state has spent too much on Grammar schools or the latest ideological gimmick to appeal to core supporters of party in power or floating voters.

Of course it's probably not your kid getting written off.

ballysmate

TM
The Utopia comment was directed at your desire to input social factors into quantifying exam or educational results. I can think of no way that this can be done. A laudable aim but not practicable in the real world.