peterms Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 This is from someone who's spent a number of years investigating educational issues, rather than relying on reminiscence and anecdote. Conclusion Taken together the analyses presented here provide no evidence at all that Grammar schools provide a ‘ladder of opportunity’ for poor or disadvantaged pupils. The clear picture that does emerge is of a system of schooling that systematically discriminates against pupils of this type and is also highly exclusive in its social composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 The very mention of British Rail as a brand suggests that's a failrly old anecdote. But it doesn't mean it lacks relevance. I think either system / both systems have their faults and strengths. But we can't turn back the clock and these days money talks. People will move house to be close to a better school (I've done it), and people will buy coaching for their kids to get the grades they need to get into a selective school. But all of that is slightly straying from the point. There has clearly been an attempt to re calibrate the exams for some reason. It's just been done so clumsily that it left the figures looking skewed, wrong, tampered with. It's the tampering with kids lives that has caused the upset. Kids were told a mark of 'x' would get them their desired outcome. After the event the price of their desired outcome was inflated. There was an attempt, rightly or wrongly, to redress years of grade inflation with some marking criteria inflation. Unfortunately, this wasn't a gradual .3% here or there beginning of a slow turn. It was a clunking great change. Partly by marking harder, partly by setting harder questions. All it proves is a lack of finesse in the implementation of the change. The change itself orchestrated by central government and their desire to ideologically distance themselves from the 'everyones a winner' failings of the current system with it's need to invent new grades higher than A in order to keep some semblance of merit. 'twas clumsy. The only losers are those small number of kids this year that have now missed their required grade they needed by the grade inflation figure. Though the obvious fear is that nobody can now work out what next years required marks will be, or what type and standard of random question will be on the next paper, which short of psychic powers, even the best teachers won't be able to account for. The fact that this has potentially also dropped schools into the category that targets them for change / closure / replacement is interesting. Gove would be quite brave now to target a school that can show that until this year's 'odd' results they were fine. That really would suggest political manipulation. Doubtless the first case and the resultant trading of statistics that prove both sides is only just around the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 They promote social mobility for a small number of people who get into them and who couldn't get in to a similar school where access was only dependent on wealth. People seem to confuse that, with promoting social mobility across the board, which is a very, very different thing. What do people really mean by social mobility,though? And what do they really want when they advocate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veloman Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Would it be reasonable to suggest that the main argument against Grammar schools is the fact that, (when the Olde King was alive),the division was made at age 11. That ,I think, is pretty young for such a momentous event which, in my opinion , can affect the rest of your life. If one went to a Secondary Modern but developed sufficiently to sit 'O' Levels it was still possible by going to a College but this set you back 2 years c/f Grammar school pupils. I don't think social status/affluence comes into it. As an aside; are people aware that when preparing a 'Personal Statement' when applying to University, to be able to use the expression 'First in Family' (to go to University) is regarded as an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Would it be reasonable to suggest that the main argument against Grammar schools is the fact that, (when the Olde King was alive),the division was made at age 11. That ,I think, is pretty young for such a momentous event which, in my opinion , can affect the rest of your life. If one went to a Secondary Modern but developed sufficiently to sit 'O' Levels it was still possible by going to a College but this set you back 2 years c/f Grammar school pupils. I don't think social status/affluence comes into it. As an aside; are people aware that when preparing a 'Personal Statement' when applying to University, to be able to use the expression 'First in Family' (to go to University) is regarded as an advantage. If your only objection against grammar schools is the age/method of selection, then fine, by all means suggest alternatives. I personally found the 11+ (actually 12+ where I lived) an absolute piece of piss, as did most of my friends. I think the general principle of selection is a good one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veloman Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 If your only objection against grammar schools is the age/method of selection, then fine, by all means suggest alternatives. I personally found the 11+ (actually 12+ where I lived) an absolute piece of piss, as did most of my friends. The alternative; well I guess it is Comprehensive schools ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 The very mention of British Rail as a brand suggests that's a failrly old anecdote. But it doesn't mean it lacks relevance. I think either system / both systems have their faults and strengths. But we can't turn back the clock and these days money talks. People will move house to be close to a better school (I've done it), and people will buy coaching for their kids to get the grades they need to get into a selective school. But all of that is slightly straying from the point. There has clearly been an attempt to re calibrate the exams for some reason. It's just been done so clumsily that it left the figures looking skewed, wrong, tampered with. It's the tampering with kids lives that has caused the upset. Kids were told a mark of 'x' would get them their desired outcome. After the event the price of their desired outcome was inflated. There was an attempt, rightly or wrongly, to redress years of grade inflation with some marking criteria inflation. Unfortunately, this wasn't a gradual .3% here or there beginning of a slow turn. It was a clunking great change. Partly by marking harder, partly by setting harder questions. All it proves is a lack of finesse in the implementation of the change. The change itself orchestrated by central government and their desire to ideologically distance themselves from the 'everyones a winner' failings of the current system with it's need to invent new grades higher than A in order to keep some semblance of merit. 'twas clumsy. The only losers are those small number of kids this year that have now missed their required grade they needed by the grade inflation figure. Though the obvious fear is that nobody can now work out what next years required marks will be, or what type and standard of random question will be on the next paper, which short of psychic powers, even the best teachers won't be able to account for. The fact that this has potentially also dropped schools into the category that targets them for change / closure / replacement is interesting. Gove would be quite brave now to target a school that can show that until this year's 'odd' results they were fine. That really would suggest political manipulation. Doubtless the first case and the resultant trading of statistics that prove both sides is only just around the corner. Far and away the best post here on this subject, agree with all it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 27, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted August 27, 2012 The very mention of British Rail as a brand suggests that's a failrly old anecdote. But it doesn't mean it lacks relevance. I think either system / both systems have their faults and strengths. But we can't turn back the clock and these days money talks. People will move house to be close to a better school (I've done it), and people will buy coaching for their kids to get the grades they need to get into a selective school. But all of that is slightly straying from the point. There has clearly been an attempt to re calibrate the exams for some reason. It's just been done so clumsily that it left the figures looking skewed, wrong, tampered with. It's the tampering with kids lives that has caused the upset. Kids were told a mark of 'x' would get them their desired outcome. After the event the price of their desired outcome was inflated. There was an attempt, rightly or wrongly, to redress years of grade inflation with some marking criteria inflation. Unfortunately, this wasn't a gradual .3% here or there beginning of a slow turn. It was a clunking great change. Partly by marking harder, partly by setting harder questions. All it proves is a lack of finesse in the implementation of the change. The change itself orchestrated by central government and their desire to ideologically distance themselves from the 'everyones a winner' failings of the current system with it's need to invent new grades higher than A in order to keep some semblance of merit. 'twas clumsy. The only losers are those small number of kids this year that have now missed their required grade they needed by the grade inflation figure. Though the obvious fear is that nobody can now work out what next years required marks will be, or what type and standard of random question will be on the next paper, which short of psychic powers, even the best teachers won't be able to account for. The fact that this has potentially also dropped schools into the category that targets them for change / closure / replacement is interesting. Gove would be quite brave now to target a school that can show that until this year's 'odd' results they were fine. That really would suggest political manipulation. Doubtless the first case and the resultant trading of statistics that prove both sides is only just around the corner. Eloquently put (much better than I.) Nonetheless it is precisely my opinion too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 fair play to George Osbourne, you really know you've left your mark on a country when a happy feelgood crowd at a paralympic sporting event has booed and heckled you at a medal giving ceremony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 fair play to George Osbourne, you really know you've left your mark on a country when a happy feelgood crowd at a paralympic sporting event has booed and heckled you at a medal giving ceremony Worth a He's still smiling, though (or as my partner says, "He's still got that glaikit expression, then"). I expect he's used to that kind of reception. Probably happens in Cabinet meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 fair play to George Osbourne, you really know you've left your mark on a country when a happy feelgood crowd at a paralympic sporting event has booed and heckled you at a medal giving ceremony Quite understandable, but then apparently the same crowd cheered Gordon Brown, so their judgement has zero credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 New minister of equality - has voted against - Gay adoption rights - Human embryo and fertilization bill which would help many - Against the process of the racial and religious hatred bill In favour of - defining Homophobia, Racial Hatred and Prejudice as just "freedom of speech" The new Health Secretary described the NHS as a 60 year mistake and criticized its mention in the Olympic opening ceremony It seems that the Tory party are showing even more of their true colours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 - Against the process of the racial and religious hatred bill do we need a bill to tell us who to hate ? I thought we already knew it was those nasty muslims who want to eat our babies and chop our hands off ** The new Health Secretary described the NHS as a 60 year mistake nice sound bite from leftfootforward or wherever ... but that quote is from Dan Hannan .. and was on US TV not in a book /paper (if you want me to do all your work for your lefty website , Hunt actually called for the NHS to be dismantled and aslo called the NHS no longer relevant) no need to thank me :-) ** it was of course not serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 fair play to George Osbourne, you really know you've left your mark on a country when a happy feelgood crowd at a paralympic sporting event has booed and heckled you at a medal giving ceremony Quite understandable, but then apparently the same crowd cheered Gordon Brown, so their judgement has zero credibility. ** Pedant** T'was a different venue and thus a different crowd (Brown was at the Aquatic centre) tbh I think it's wrong , same as I thought it was wrong when the Liverpool fans booed the Labour blokey at the Hillsborough remembrance ... it over shadows the event itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 when asked why he thought 80,000 had booed Osbourne at the Olympic Stadium David Cameron answered: 'because that's as many as they can get in'* * possible complete fabrication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Theresa May. Any idea why she got sooo defensive on Eddie Maire's Radio 4 slot earlier. Right at the start of the interview he asked her if she'd been offered any other posts, she sounded instantly stumped and gave a non answer. This caused EM to ask again and she went into full on politician don't give an answer mode. This always surprises me, MP's on all sides that refuse to give a simple answer, a yes or a no, and try to get all defensive with long non answers to simple questions. I'm sure this just turned a non interesting question into a big deal and she actually managed to make it sound like there had been 'issues' between herself and Cameron. I know no politician ever likes to look wrong footed, admit guilt or the like, but she really did dig a hole that didn't need digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 4, 2012 tbh I think it's wrong , same as I thought it was wrong when the Liverpool fans booed the Labour blokey at the Hillsborough remembrance ... it over shadows the event itself I get your sentiment, but I think the two things are different - a remembrance service and a sporting event. I also think that "we" don't get many opportunities to pass on our feelings to Gov't figures, directly, in person and if "we" feel strongly enough, then go for it. Chancellor Gideon (GCSE maths), "austerity is for the poor not the rich" Osborne deserved a good verbal shoeing and he got one. Hurrah for the British people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Theresa May. don't 't think that she was in the firing line or that she would have wanted a new role so maybe she is just miffed that 4 percent of the population polled mistake her for Harriet Harman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 tbh I think it's wrong , same as I thought it was wrong when the Liverpool fans booed the Labour blokey at the Hillsborough remembrance ... it over shadows the event itself I get your sentiment, but I think the two things are different - a remembrance service and a sporting event. I also think that "we" don't get many opportunities to pass on our feelings to Gov't figures, directly, in person and if "we" feel strongly enough, then go for it. Chancellor Gideon (GCSE maths), "austerity is for the poor not the rich" Osborne deserved a good verbal shoeing and he got one. Hurrah for the British people. oh yeah I can understand the why I just think It wasn't fair on the people he was giving awards to as much as anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Jeremy word removed as Health minister is a monumentally bad appointment. Is Cameron having a laugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts