Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tangled_metal

Secondary moderns are the flip side of GS. Better to get rid of both and just have a comprehensive that provides streamed education as appropriate for all abilities. GS works for one class or level of ability but helps to create the conditions for the other class or ability level to fail.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

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.

Nope, just you putting words into my mouth again.

Effort should be rewarded, what is fairer than that.

If you want any evidence of how your or TMs level playing field is laudable but impractical, just talk to parents. Ones like Diane Abbott, or any other leftie hypocrite.

ballysmate

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?

If after pushing, coaching and best wishes they failed the 11+, it would probably dawn on me that they were not sufficiently academically inclined to benefit from a GS education.
I would expect them to attend a secondary modern and receive the best education befitting their abilities.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

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.

^^^
This.

ballysmate

Simply put start young, encourage and TBH if parents don't do a good job.it'sn 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.

Assuming the typo should have read 'isn't it up to teachers to fill the gap', the answer is No.
In loco parentis was never meant to stretch to teachers taking the place of a parent to dozens of kids whose parents were unwilling or unable to fulfil their role and responsibilities.
There are threads on here where teachers or their partners are complaining about teachers present burdens and I feel sure they would be less than keen to have to run after school classes and fulfil parental roles for people who can't be arsed.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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.

Nope, just you putting words into my mouth again.

Effort should be rewarded, what is fairer than that.

If you want any evidence of how your or TMs level playing field is laudable but impractical, just talk to parents. Ones like Diane Abbott, or any other leftie hypocrite.

so only lefties want better Comp education for their kids... really?

you only want to reward the kids who can make the 11 plus and get into a GS, everyone is just a moaning leftie who should doff their cap and be grateful eh?

As for the current batch of Comps dragging down gifted kids? sorry this is rubbish, they'd be in special measures quicker than Cameron can say "I resign" if they actually did that, but they do need better funding to match that of private and GS, let alone our international competitors.

Bally, decent teachers will always do the best for their charges, esp when the parents fail to do so, who else should step in? or again, do we as a society, just leave them be?

tangled_metal

You factor social factors into the education by providing the resources needed to overcome each kid's difficulties to perform.

I remember a documentary about a really good inner city school that didn't exclude anyone, indeed it was often where kids got dumped when excluded by all the other local schools. It was the place middle class parents had horrors about their kids going to.

This school, by necessity, had to overcome this. It got funding and set up a unit for such troubled kids. They had to provide small class sizes, significant teacher resources and a head teacher who was actively involved, hands on and passionate of recovering these kids.

Can't remember the full stories told but it involved a lot of pastoral care. The unit had its own building too designed and built to provide the best environment for its needs. One girl was turned around through the school getting involved and even helping the kid's home life a little bit. One teacher even went to find one troubled kid who'd bunked off. Turns out the kid had issues where any difficult problems resulted in him running away. He was bullied.and called stupid. Result? He got 5+ a to c grade GCSEs and onto a vocational course IIRC.

I wish I could remember the details because I found it fascinating and a real eye opener. It cost more per kid but a less than GS costs. Worth it because that kid could have been a drain on the state but was well on his way to being a net contributor to the state's coffers in a good trade. Well in the black on the cost / benefits scale in the end,

That is what I mean by accounting for social factors, providing the necessary resources to find the real ability and capability for all kids. Pastoral care through to resources like study facilities out of hours. I'm sure educational experts could come up with the ideas needed but education is always a political football. Time to change that with new ideas or contribute to failure of a lot of kids through old ideas that don't work for majority of kids.

ballysmate

Mamba. Yes decent teachers do go above and beyond, but it shouldn't be relied on as a matter of course by lazy/poor parents. I want teachers touse their time teaching.
People can't just abdicate responsibility for their kids and expect teachers to take their place.
Mind you, if some parents expect the state to pay for their kids, they may expect the state to parent them.

ballysmate

The unit had its own building too designed and built to provide the best environment for its needs.

That is what I am advocating to meet the needs of the kids with the highest abilities -a grammar school.

tangled_metal

It was a building within the school. The aim was ultimately to turn the kid around so they could get.back into mainstream education. One kid did that and carried on into a levels at tree school within a normal class. Nothing like grammar schools because that extreme streaming ended up with a poorly performing kid to go up a stream within the same school into a normal class based on performance.

ballysmate

As I keep saying, I am all for streaming in secondary moderns so your poorly performing kids could go up a level if their performance warranted it.
I still think that GS would give the kids showing the best potential the environment to best achieve that potential.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba. Yes decent teachers do go above and beyond, but it shouldn't be relied on as a matter of course by lazy/poor parents. I want teachers touse their time teaching.
People can't just abdicate responsibility for their kids and expect teachers to take their place.
Mind you, if some parents expect the state to pay for their kids, they may expect the state to parent them.

What to with these kids then?

as i said a while back, you need to break the cycle, raise educational standards and you ll have less poor parenting, giving teachers more time to teach.

What would you do with the kid who turns up at primary school unable to speak, hold a fork, pen or even in nappies? send them home?????
also, i assume you d get rid of the special needs departments in schools as the teachers are not "teaching"

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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.

Nope, just you putting words into my mouth again.

Effort should be rewarded, what is fairer than that.

If you want any evidence of how your or TMs level playing field is laudable but impractical, just talk to parents. Ones like Diane Abbott, or any other leftie hypocrite.

so only lefties want better Comp education for their kids... really?

you only want to reward the kids who can make the 11 plus and get into a GS, everyone is just a moaning leftie who should doff their cap and be grateful eh?

As for the current batch of Comps dragging down gifted kids? sorry this is rubbish, they'd be in special measures quicker than Cameron can say "I resign" if they actually did that, but they do need better funding to match that of private and GS, let alone our international competitors.

Bally, decent teachers will always do the best for their charges, esp when the parents fail to do so, who else should step in? or again, do we as a society, just leave them be?

How do you make that connection about only lefties wanting comp education? And the bit about offing caps exists only in your imagination. I'm getting a bit tired of your inability or unwilingness to read what I say and respond to that, and instead go off on a tangent about what you imagine I am saying.

And throughout this you appear to be mixing up equal education with fair and appropriate education. Fair and appropriate does not mean equal becuase the needs are different. Grammars and streaming are suitable because of these differences.

There is no middle class conspiracy to keep the working classes 'in their place'. Nor is being pushy or wanting good education for kids the preserve of the middle classes.

Bally has already answered your last question.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba. Yes decent teachers do go above and beyond, but it shouldn't be relied on as a matter of course by lazy/poor parents. I want teachers touse their time teaching.
People can't just abdicate responsibility for their kids and expect teachers to take their place.
Mind you, if some parents expect the state to pay for their kids, they may expect the state to parent them.

What to with these kids then?

as i said a while back, you need to break the cycle, raise educational standards and you ll have less poor parenting, giving teachers more time to teach.

What would you do with the kid who turns up at primary school unable to speak, hold a fork, pen or even in nappies? send them home?????
also, i assume you d get rid of the special needs departments in schools as the teachers are not "teaching"

I would suggest that a main stream school would not be suitable for such a child and a place at a special needs school would be more appropriate. Moreover, I'm sure teachers didn't go into mainstream education to change nappies.
A neighbour's daughter, although not suffering the problems as extreme in your scenario, attended such a school and did very well in the environment provided.
A bit like kids with an aptitude thriving in the environment of a GS.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

A bit like kids with an aptitude thriving in the environment of a GS.

Which is exactly what my daughter is doing in her GS. As are her mates, who come from a wide mix of backgrounds

Stuff the leftie theories, it works very well in practice based on what I see.

tangled_metal

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Mamba. Yes decent teachers do go above and beyond, but it shouldn't be relied on as a matter of course by lazy/poor parents. I want teachers touse their time teaching.
People can't just abdicate responsibility for their kids and expect teachers to take their place.
Mind you, if some parents expect the state to pay for their kids, they may expect the state to parent them.

What to with these kids then?

<Snip>

What would you do with the kid who turns up at primary school unable to speak, hold a fork, pen or even in nappies? send them home?????

I would suggest that a main stream school would not be suitable for such a child and a place at a special needs school would be more appropriate. Moreover, I'm sure teachers didn't go into mainstream education to change nappies.

Actually, mambo's examples aren't that unusual. Kids go to reception year at school still in nappies because their parents had no interest in potty training. It's left to teachers at primary school to do that in some cases. Kids using hands to eat not forks is not unusual. Kids with such a poor level of language skills they're not get communicative.

Teachers end up having to develop these kids from these sorts of low levels because their parents do not care enough to be actual parents. They aren't special needs kids so shouldn't be in such places. They're just neglected. They'll probably have this neglect of all their childhood which will result in teachers, social services and those in school involved in welfare (or whatever that's called these days).

I know people in such roles and as a devoted dad to a young child these stories of neglect truly upsets me to hear about. So intolerant or ignorant comments about sending them to special needs schools really is offensive. Stevo you need to face up to the fact you have little empathy at times to those less fortunate than you. I doubt you're really like that in person but you do come across at times on.here as lacking empathy. At least to me.

Lookyhere

Tangled Metal wrote:

I know people in such roles and as a devoted dad to a young child these stories of neglect truly upsets me to hear about. So intolerant or ignorant comments about sending them to special needs schools really is offensive. Stevo you need to face up to the fact you have little empathy at times to those less fortunate than you. I doubt you're really like that in person but you do come across at times on.here as lacking empathy. At least to me.

Nah, steve0 and bally have no emplathy, they d both be happy for the return of the poor house, so long as it was run by G4S.

ballysmate

Mamba gave the scenario of a child turning up at school, years behind in their development.
In fact he wrote

What would you do with the kid who turns up at primary school unable to speak, hold a fork, pen or even in nappies? send them home?????
also, i assume you d get rid of the special needs departments in schools as the teachers are not "teaching"

The inference from that is that such a child requires 'special needs'. I replied that such a child would be best suited to attending a school where they specialise in such provision. ie Special needs school.

TM, In what way is that offensive. Do you apply a stigma to special needs children that I don't?

TM then replies

They aren't special needs kids so shouldn't be in such places. They're just neglected.

The cause of their under development was not stated in Mamba's scenario, but no matter. No matter the reasons behind why a child lacks development, the best place is surely with people specifically trained to help and development isn't it?
I totally agree with getting child services involved if there is a case of neglect.

I know people in such roles and as a devoted dad to a young child these stories of neglect truly upsets me to hear about. So intolerant or ignorant comments about sending them to special needs schools really is offensive

I am pleased to hear that you are a devoted dad. I'm sure Stevo is and I hope I am, but what's this, a game of top trumps in compassion? Are you suggesting that you are more compassionate than others, particularly those without children? I'd imagine that people might find offence in that.

As for knowing people in such roles, my daughter's occupation before she went to Oz, and the role she will return to, was caring for children in a residential home, who were victims of sexual abuse. The ages of the kids were from 5 to 16 as far as I could make out because she would not discus the kids.
What I do know is that that these kids suffered mental scarring due to their abuse resulting in stunted mental development and behavioural problems. They were schooled in a special facility.
In TM and Mamba's world, these kids would rock up at the local primary just before their 5th birthday or their local comp at 11 at the mercy of a one size fits all education system and hope that the teachers there, without the specialised training, do the best they can for them.
That is a system that would lack compassion.

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I know people in such roles and as a devoted dad to a young child these stories of neglect truly upsets me to hear about. So intolerant or ignorant comments about sending them to special needs schools really is offensive. Stevo you need to face up to the fact you have little empathy at times to those less fortunate than you. I doubt you're really like that in person but you do come across at times on.here as lacking empathy. At least to me.

Nah, steve0 and bally have no emplathy, they d both be happy for the return of the poor house, so long as it was run by G4S.

Would we?
My philosophy has always been trying to strive for improvement. I am happy to see people make a success of their lives.

Someone posted on here, regarding education.

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

This is anathema to me. I want people to strive for success.

But it does encapsulate leftist thinking. In realising their goal of a more equal society, they would rather everyone be poor than have anyone rich.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I know people in such roles and as a devoted dad to a young child these stories of neglect truly upsets me to hear about. So intolerant or ignorant comments about sending them to special needs schools really is offensive. Stevo you need to face up to the fact you have little empathy at times to those less fortunate than you. I doubt you're really like that in person but you do come across at times on.here as lacking empathy. At least to me.

Nah, steve0 and bally have no emplathy, they d both be happy for the return of the poor house, so long as it was run by G4S.

Trying to have a reasoned argument about something sometimes means that you don't go trying flash your compassion credentials, regardless of personal feelings on something. Again, you both are drawing conclusions from what has not been said.

Its easy to talk a good game; delivering it in the real world Is what counts and that is where lefties fail. Trying to impose comps as the only option for state education is a good real world example of this.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I know people in such roles and as a devoted dad to a young child these stories of neglect truly upsets me to hear about. So intolerant or ignorant comments about sending them to special needs schools really is offensive. Stevo you need to face up to the fact you have little empathy at times to those less fortunate than you. I doubt you're really like that in person but you do come across at times on.here as lacking empathy. At least to me.

Nah, steve0 and bally have no emplathy, they d both be happy for the return of the poor house, so long as it was run by G4S.

Trying to have a reasoned argument about something sometimes means that you don't go trying flash your compassion credentials, regardless of personal feelings on something. Again, you both are drawing conclusions from what has not been said.

Its easy to talk a good game; delivering it in the real world Is what counts and that is where lefties fail. Trying to impose comps as the only option for state education is a good real world example of this.

i lived in sweden, at the time of successive so called leftie governments and striving for a more equal society aint so bad steve0, i ve also lived in s Africa, a society run along the lines of privilege and opportunity for the few and it is very bad.

We are failing in inovation and in ed standards, have been for years, inc the hay day of Grammar schools, so it doent work, we import semi and skilled labour and have failed to invest in good vocational training, takes years to become a sparky or a plumber, a 6month gov apprenticeship doesnt cut it.
Our competitors dont use a GS system, so why arent we learning from what they do?

We need to invest very heavily in education, a few extra GS, is a side show and wont address problems i ve out lined or poor parenting nor will reducing everything left or right politics.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I know people in such roles and as a devoted dad to a young child these stories of neglect truly upsets me to hear about. So intolerant or ignorant comments about sending them to special needs schools really is offensive. Stevo you need to face up to the fact you have little empathy at times to those less fortunate than you. I doubt you're really like that in person but you do come across at times on.here as lacking empathy. At least to me.

Nah, steve0 and bally have no emplathy, they d both be happy for the return of the poor house, so long as it was run by G4S.

Trying to have a reasoned argument about something sometimes means that you don't go trying flash your compassion credentials, regardless of personal feelings on something. Again, you both are drawing conclusions from what has not been said.

Its easy to talk a good game; delivering it in the real world Is what counts and that is where lefties fail. Trying to impose comps as the only option for state education is a good real world example of this.

i lived in sweden, at the time of successive so called leftie governments and striving for a more equal society aint so bad steve0, i ve also lived in s Africa, a society run along the lines of privilege and opportunity for the few and it is very bad.

We are failing in inovation and in ed standards, have been for years, inc the hay day of Grammar schools, so it doent work, we import semi and skilled labour and have failed to invest in good vocational training, takes years to become a sparky or a plumber, a 6month gov apprenticeship doesnt cut it.
Our competitors dont use a GS system, so why arent we learning from what they do?

We need to invest very heavily in education, a few extra GS, is a side show and wont address problems i ve out lined or poor parenting nor will reducing everything left or right politics.

I'm not going to go into your Sweden/SA point as we can all choose examples of countries that suit our own arguments, regardless of their relevance to the UK.

As for your answer, it seems to be to spend more money. Well that's the left wing answer to almost everything in these sorts of arguments. The last Labour govt showed that simply chucking more money at unreformed public services often does not work. Grammars are a reform that so many parents want. How do you know better than all these people who want more grammars?

- As for your claims about vocational training, got any figures to back that up?
- As for importing labour, how much of that is down to strong business growth caused by the relatively business friendly environment in the UK?

And you haven't explained how a 'one size fits all' system is actually better than the alternatives. Please do.

narbs

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm not going to go into your Sweden/SA point as we can all choose examples of countries that suit our own arguments, regardless of their relevance to the UK.

As for your answer, it seems to be to spend more money. Well that's the left wing answer to almost everything in these sorts of arguments. The last Labour govt showed that simply chucking more money at unreformed public services often does not work. Grammars are a reform that so many parents want. How do you know better than all these people who want more grammars?

- As for your claims about vocational training, got any figures to back that up?
- As for importing labour, how much of that is down to strong business growth caused by the relatively business friendly environment in the UK?

And you haven't explained how a 'one size fits all' system is actually better than the alternatives. Please do.

You're genuinely not worth engaging with but this is so vacuous as to be beyond belief.

You ask others to provide evidence.

I asked earlier for evidence about the effect on social mobility of grammar schools. Nothing from you.

"Strong business growth caused by the relatively business friendly environment in the UK" Your words.

Come on, define strong. Genuinely, what is your definition of strong business growth?

And what does 'relatively business friendly' even mean? Relative to what? To whom? To where? Do you have a clue?

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

You're genuinely not worth engaging with but this is so vacuous as to be beyond belief.

You ask others to provide evidence.

I asked earlier for evidence about the effect on social mobility of grammar schools. Nothing from you.

"Strong business growth caused by the relatively business friendly environment in the UK" Your words.

Come on, define strong. Genuinely, what is your definition of strong business growth?

And what does 'relatively business friendly' even mean? Relative to what? To whom? To where? Do you have a clue?

If I'm not worth engaging with, why are you posting on here again?

I asked mamba a couple of questions for him to answer so let him answer them. Would be a nice change instead of the usual going off on a tangent.

Or you could try putting forward some pertinent points rather than your post above which is irrelevant to the argument. Go on, see if you can exceed my expectations...

tangled_metal

Bally, Stevo I'm not trying to show off anything like compassion I'm simply saying it's not unusual for kids with average intelligence coming into the primary school without what might see as basic life skills such as potty trained, able to use forks etc. It's not the case such lack of learnt skills automatically means special needs education is where such kids need to go. It's neglect pure and simple which does mean teachers have to get involved. It would be nice if everyone was at the same developmental levels at the start of schooling but if that comes from parents you will get neglect and such cases.

My comments about being a parent of a young child who'll be starting school next year is really that I despair that this neglect happens. This neglect is also kind of part of the point I have against GS system. If kids are being failed before school age resulting in development stages aren't met what are their chances through primary school and the 11+? These aren't necessarily behind because of low intelligence or ability.

So some say stopping GS system is penalizing the middle class or the bright kids achieve academic success in favour of lowering standards. However the GS system doesn't select purely on potential academic ability, it's also selecting on other factors such as the way the kid is being brought up by their parents plus other factors. It's not fair to anyone except the minority who get in. And don't tell me those in grammar schools are all deserving to be there over those who didn't get in. I know from how I got into mine that's not true. I nearly didn't get in but those who got walked straight in through expensive coaching to pass were struggling and bottom of the class/year. It's not a fair system so why go back to that?

Good point about other nations not using a GS system but leaving UK behind academically. That to me suggests that there are other, better ways to achieve for our kids.

ballysmate

TM, you assert that there is an army of neglected under developed kids entering school because of neglect. Was it you that previously posted that we, as a nation, place less premium on education than in by gone years and certainly less than developing countries. In which case it is society that is failing kids in many ways. Perhaps it's a case of 'monkey see, monkey do'. Kids with hard working parents, striving to improve their lives tend to follow the example set. Do kids who see their parents content to get by on benefits and accept their lot tend to copy that mindset?
You argue that social factors impede some children's capability to learn. How are these kids' chances improved by holding back the kids who are more capable? You say the 11+ is unfair. The 11+ tries to identify kids with the potential to reach the highest levels of education.
These social factors that are impeding kids- do they disappear after age 11? I would think that there become more acute as kids enter their teens. So what would you do vis à vis GCSE results? Are they to be scrapped as well for being unfair?
Mamba makes the point of a lack of vocational training with which I am in agreement.
We have a situation whereby half of youngsters enter further education.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22280939

How ridiculous is that? People are leaving uni with degrees that aren't worth a w@nk. As someone pointed out earlier, you now need a degree to qualify to do a job for which an O level used to be adequate.

All through life you are measured and selected. Kids even do it themselves. Get a group of kids together to play football and watch them pick teams. There are always the kids who are first pick and kids that are left til last.
I agree that education should be about getting kids to maximise their potential, but how can you do this without some sort of selection? Kids abilities should be identified so that they receive the education, including vocational, that best suits their abilities.
The GS system isn't perfect. No system is. To my mind though it represents a system that strives for improvement rather than a system that settles for mediocrity.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i lived in sweden, at the time of successive so called leftie governments and striving for a more equal society aint so bad steve0, i ve also lived in s Africa, a society run along the lines of privilege and opportunity for the few and it is very bad.

We are failing in inovation and in ed standards, have been for years, inc the hay day of Grammar schools, so it doent work, we import semi and skilled labour and have failed to invest in good vocational training, takes years to become a sparky or a plumber, a 6month gov apprenticeship doesnt cut it.
Our competitors dont use a GS system, so why arent we learning from what they do?

We need to invest very heavily in education, a few extra GS, is a side show and wont address problems i ve out lined or poor parenting nor will reducing everything left or right politics.

I'm not going to go into your Sweden/SA point as we can all choose examples of countries that suit our own arguments, regardless of their relevance to the UK.

As for your answer, it seems to be to spend more money. Well that's the left wing answer to almost everything in these sorts of arguments. The last Labour govt showed that simply chucking more money at unreformed public services often does not work. Grammars are a reform that so many parents want. How do you know better than all these people who want more grammars?

- As for your claims about vocational training, got any figures to back that up?
- As for importing labour, how much of that is down to strong business growth caused by the relatively business friendly environment in the UK?

And you haven't explained how a 'one size fits all' system is actually better than the alternatives. Please do.

Well, education is a very heavy resource intense service, buildings, equipment and most importantly teachers all cost money, so unfortunately better schools means spending more, its called investment, of course money needs to be spent wisely, not as i saw recently on a computer suite of Mac's for general use when win10 PC's would do perfectly well.

Most gov answer to reform means cutting remuneration and little else.

by about 2020, the OECD predicts we ll be 28th out of 33 in league tables for intermediate skills, we are failing to provide industry with the youngsters equipped for the modern work place.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

As for your answer, it seems to be to spend more money. Well that's the left wing answer to almost everything in these sorts of arguments. The last Labour govt showed that simply chucking more money at unreformed public services often does not work. Grammars are a reform that so many parents want. How do you know better than all these people who want more grammars? .

Is this the sort of reform you like?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -nhs-plans

Another example of "giving the people what they want" without a clue how or rather how much will it all cost, you seem to think that money isnt the answer to get improved public services

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As for your answer, it seems to be to spend more money. Well that's the left wing answer to almost everything in these sorts of arguments. The last Labour govt showed that simply chucking more money at unreformed public services often does not work. Grammars are a reform that so many parents want. How do you know better than all these people who want more grammars? .

Is this the sort of reform you like?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -nhs-plans

Another example of "giving the people what they want" without a clue how or rather how much will it all cost, you seem to think that money isnt the answer to get improved public services

Since when has the cost been an issue for lefties? After all, its other people's money

What I said above was that simply chucking money at unreformed public services often doent work. Typically you also need to change how things work - which is what TM is doing with lifting the ban on grammars.

As you can see, spending on education is already very substantial and has grown over time, with pre university education spending protected:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education
So maybe it's not the spending that's the problem. Perhaps 'one size fits all' is part of the issue - after all, simply spending more money on a flawed system rather than improving/changing the system is not a good idea, is it.

Questions for you are how much more do you want to spend, on what and how would you fund it?

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

Since when has the cost been an issue for lefties? After all, its other people's money

Some "lefties" do pay taxes, you know.