Looks like Smith’s own constituency may vote against him 2 to 1.
2 Likes
Widespread ridicule? Haven’t read that anywhere in the press.
This is interesting, as we have been constantly told that the Academies route of schools isn’t working:
Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Chief inspector of schools, told the BBC’s Radio 4’s Today programme this morning that there has been a “turnaround” in state education, “and we don’t want to put that at risk”.
He warned that Theresa May’s plan to bring back grammar schools threatens up to 20 years of progress in the education system. Sir Michael Wilshaw said dividing the school system could impact on the UK’s ability to compete with the rest of the world.
He said: "Academies, free schools, that’s a Conservative programme. Let it work.
"Most of those academies, all of them as far as I’m aware - and free schools - are all-ability schools. And they are delivering better results, the best results that we’ve ever seen in this country.
“My concern is that by going backwards we will throw a spanner in the works and that momentum will be halted.”
I heard that interview. The man spoke almost entirely in idioms. I wouldn’t trust him on his vague reports of academy success.
Proposals, What proposals?
Also allowing faith schools to be fully selective based on a belief in some false story from the distant past.
If you’re going to try talking down to people at least read what she said.
What does lower income even mean. Surely a family on 100k is a low income family in an area that has been gentrified by people earning 200k, all because of the school.
I remember being 11 years old and hanging out at a mate’s house over the Christmas break. We all went to the same primary school and were talking about how things were at our new secondaries.
One mate of mine, Dominic, said “yoo go sum boffin school ting now innit”. Dominic was a middle-class white kid and our parents were friends.
He had applied for that very same school himself. He failed the test.
Like it or lump it, comprehensives in London were utter shite for the most part; mainly because of a culture which regarded working vaguely hard or getting half decent results would see you well and truly picked on. There were exceptions - my sister went to Graveney in Tooting (out of choice - she got into the grammar schools in Surrey but couldn’t stand them) and that seemed decent enough.
I managed to avoid it at primary school but only after I figured out that misbehaving and being the class clown allowed me to get away with it. I still remember twatting around in class during my first year of secondary school and being utterly bemused when the jokes just didn’t come off! But that’s the thing, doing well academically just didn’t come with any stigma attached.
I’m not talking about some kind of geeky academic obsession either - I’m just talking about exchanges such as…
“What d’you get in the test?”
“Yeah good mate 90%”
“Shit, 90? Played.”
“Cheers - playing football at lunch?”
“Yeah cool - in a bit”
…being commonplace. It does wonders for a lot of kids.
And finally, re. tutoring. How hard can it be to buy a few past papers and only let your kid on the playstation when he’s done two half-hour practice tests in the evening?
1 Like
Broaden your horizons then
But then you wouldn’t trust anyone who would say they’re doing well in all honesty, would you? I suppose the only way you can really view it is through results.
For instance our local school went from 36% level 4’s and above to 88% within 18 months, and the other closest new academy went from 71% to 78% in one year. Obviously a localised example, but it’s still relevant (happy to give you the name of the schools if you are sceptical).
Justine Greening spoke about it yesterday, and has been doing the rounds this morning:
Education Secretary Justine Greening, has been asked whether the schools would only benefit those from advantaged backgrounds, by ITV’s Great Morning Britain.
She said: "We are going to be setting out some conditions around how grammar schools can expand and new grammar schools, and the fact we do want to see existing grammars do more to work with local communities, and more to make sure that disadvantaged and low-income background children can get into grammars and benefit.
"Ninety-nine percent of grammars have a good and outstanding education.
"But all I would say is we are looking very practically at what we can do to make sure that parents and children have good school places on their doorstep.
“And I just think it is plain wrong to raise issues around how grammars are working, and then say we should not look at challenging and changing the status quo.”
But Ms Greening did not reveal whether a different pass mark would be accepted from pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds - those less able to afford tuition, or who had not come from prep schools.
She said: "We want to make sure that the entry exam for grammars is one that doesn’t tend towards enabling children who can be taught to that test, to pass more easily.
“So we are looking at how we can make sure that that test is a very open one that able children, whatever their background, can get through.”
Originally posted by @Saint-or-sinner
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Saint-or-sinner
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Saint-or-sinner
Tories, what a fucking useless bunch leading the country. Suppose they were all tutored to help hide the stupidity that’s now obvious for all to see.
It is rather scary. I think we assume that people in government are going to be smarter and more capable than us. That’s proving extremely hard with Toxic Theresa and pals.
Looking at her performances, i would imagine they are kicking themselves for not calling a snap election the day she was installed. Corbyn’s looking stronger(i was impressed with last night’s performance) whilst May’s performances are receiving widespread ridicule. If she keeps this up, i give her a year tops before the knifes are out.
Widespread ridicule? Haven’t read that anywhere in the press.
Broaden your horizons then
Ah, so you’re making stuff up then. Or are you just talking about Corbyn supporting Twitter users?
so no plan or solid proposals then, just we’re thinking about it. Have you not seen what a fucking mess this lot make every time they attempt to think?
Are you talking about this Ms Greening
Yes, that Ms Greening (can’t work out which other Ms Greening it could possibly be - maybe you can enlighten me?) What I find strange is that you’re happy to quote the Guardian if its criticising Tories, but would you quote it if its criticising Corbyn. Serious question.
No, there have been no solid proposals yet, it was only announced yesterday, but surely until you know what the proposals are you can’t criticise what they’re looking to do, especially when they’re setting out positive reforms that counteract your worries.
1 Like
I was wondering if you were thinking of someone else, as the Greening mentioned has no proposals, just talk that seems to have been dismissed by virtually every person with any expertise in the subject(unless you’re Gove and their opinion doesn’t matter).
Why do you find me linking articles that support my view strange(Guardian is my main newspaper so i will link it regularly). Do you often link to articles that are not relevant to the discussion? I would indeed link to an article that criticised Corbyn if it was relevant to my point of view. Unlike a lot of people, i do not follow a party like a religion(blind faith, when all the evidence says otherwise).
Again, no proposals. So how do they know it’s a good thing? You seem to have blind faith.
I’m not going to knock success where it’s happening, but the real academy agenda was laid bare just after the budget. It was always about getting private hands onto public property, and eventually, the schools as well.
One of the few things he mentioned in the interview that did make his case was the effect of having the top 20% moved into other schools, leaving everyone else behind.
More than anything else, I’m just bemused by the idea that selection isn’t happening anyway. Most comprehensives run sets for their core subjects. Ability is already recognised and catered for, and there’s a lot of scope for heads to run some of their own initiatives. The primary school my daughters attended taught Spanish from five. Their secondary school was completely geared up for this, allowing kids to take GCSEs at fourteen. Even back in the day, I can remember seeing my mate’s younger sister sit her maths exam the same year we did.
Comprehensives could do a lot better with more funding and less centralised meddling, and we genuinely need less elitism, not more of it. Setting kids apart at eleven won’t help.
We should also get things in perspective. We’re talking GCSEs and A Levels too; important as all hell at the time, but essentially stepping stones for most people on a longer academic track. We’re talking secondary and further education, along with the basic prep for life. I’d argue that comps leave you with a much broader perspective and put you in contact with people from very different walks of life, income levels and attitudes.
Our schools catchment area ended up becoming huge. We took kids from as far away as Bevois Town before we merged with the Deanery. Our year had some kids living in council places, others living in mansions, sharing class time. That to me is always going to provide a better education for that age than a grammar. Not a bad source of lifelong friends either.
2 Likes
So let me get this straight. A number of your main issues were with poor people getting in and gentrification of school areas, something that has been called out as things they will look to tackle, when full proposals are published. Yet your still criticising them for not addressing these issues?
I revert to one of my first comments, you saw the words “Grammar School” and went off on one without actually looking into it. Shout first, think later. The default option for a number of left wingers.
I have never said it will work. I will wait to see the full proposals (not the summary position they are currently at) prior to deciding whether they will work or not. I suggest you do the same.
In relation to the Guardian, which has been heavily criticised on here for it’s criticism of Corbyn, I am surprised that you would quote an article by a paper that goes so against your way of thinking.
For instance, I never quote the Mail or the Express, even though they have many, many anti-Labour stories, mainly because it doesn’t support my main principles, and due to this I find it hard to trust its output. If I saw a paper criticising the party leader I support unequivocally as consistently as the Guardian, I would find it hard to trust its other output, and would find it quite hypocritical. Of course, that is purely my opinion on the matter, but just explaining why I feel this way.
Good post, can’t disagree with what you’ve written there.
That is absolute bollocks - do you honestly think most parents pay school fees just to they can play one up manship with their mates on the golf course?
They do it because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the the educational opportunites presented at the school is a better option than the local state school.
I just heard May on the radio. She was saying that movement between schools should be more fluid and could happen at any time, not just KS2 to KS3 transition. So she said that if a lower income child has done well at their comp then they could move to the grammar later. My question would be…why? If they’ve done well, why would they move? Why would she want to cream off the top students from the comp and leave a school full of lower ability students? This is the creation of sink schools, a dumping ground for the poor and less able. Having bright students in comp schools is important. It stretches and inspired others. They can be good role models. They can support weaker students. Comprehensive education means education for all, not for those who can’t get into grammar schools. I don’t understand the point of reintroducing them. It doesn’t make sense to me. Part of the problem with education in this country is endless government interference, nothing to do with grammars or anything. Regular, arbitrary changes that hinder the work of professionals who are trying to help children succeed.
7 Likes
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
That is absolute bollocks - do you honestly think most parents pay school fees just to they can play one up manship with their mates on the golf course?
They do it because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the the educational opportunites presented at the school is a better option than the local state school.
I know someone spending good money on private school fees for entirely the wrong reasons. Wife a bit brighter than him, and I suspect has slightly more money behind her. He puts his “problems” down to a comprehensive education, despite having a pretty cool job.
They’ve saddled their kids with impossibly middle class names. I’m not sure that at this point, they could do anything but private. Actually feel sorry for the lot of them. Blind leading the blind. Parent trying to be something he’s not. Kids not knowing what the fuck they’re supposed to be.