The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Pettytom 1]

4 hours ago, the_bloke said:

With all due respect, you didn't go on to have a glittering career at the bar and are now a Sir. Or maybe you did.

 

It's documented that grammar schools have a better chance on increased social mobility and future earnings; https://fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/

Did you read the article that you linked to?

 

If so, how did you reach your conclusion?

 

For that matter, did you bother to read my post properly?

Edited June 1, 2020 by Pettytom

[the_bloke 17]

9 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Did you read the article that you linked to?

 

If so, how did you reach your conclusion?

 

For that matter, did you bother to read my post properly?

The conclusion is in the link. 

 

Overall, attending a grammar school does seem to be good for your educational attainment and earnings later in life, according to the IFS.

It cites two academic studies on children born in the 1950s as evidence that “attending a grammar school is good for the attainment and later earnings of those who get in”.

But it goes on to say “there is equally good evidence that those in selective areas who don’t pass the eleven plus do worse than they would have done in a comprehensive system”.

That’s the same for Northern Ireland, according to the IFS. It examined the evidence from the expansion of grammar schools in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s. Average performance in Northern Ireland improved, it said, but the gap between the top performers and the low performers widened, with pupils not going to grammar schools doing worse.

[the_bloke 17]

7 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

At the last general election, the Lib Dems were the only party (in England at least) whose manifesto committed them firmly to "opposing any future expansion of grammar schools".

 

https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan - see "Our Plan for Better Education and Skills / Accountable Local Schools"

 

Speaking as a "centrist", how do you feel about that?

I'm not just a centrist, I'm also a believer in free choice. If grammar schools are available then people should have the freedom to send their children to one, and if the government policy is to increase the number of schools then so be it. More choice is better for all. My only caveat is that the alternative of a grammar school should be a school tailored for the needs of the pupils who may excel in different academic areas and it actually encourage learning and not be a dumping ground like secondary moderns were in the 1960s.

 

Not sure why the Lib Dems matter here. Or anywhere really.

 

I also don't agree with banning private schools either (or 'redistributing' them to the state as Labour voted on at the 2019 conference). If parents want to send their children to a fee paying school, like Keir Starmer's parents did, then it's their choice. Big deal. Get over it etc.  Just don't reap the benefit of it then prevent others from doing so, which goes back to my original post in this discussion. It smacks of the politics of envy especially when coming out the mouth of Angela Rayner.

 

Your feelings on that last point is if you believe that people get a better start in life by going to grammar or fee paying schools or not. I believe they do, you presumably do not.

[Pettytom 1]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

The conclusion is in the link. 

 

Overall, attending a grammar school does seem to be good for your educational attainment and earnings later in life, according to the IFS.

It cites two academic studies on children born in the 1950s as evidence that “attending a grammar school is good for the attainment and later earnings of those who get in”.

But it goes on to say “there is equally good evidence that those in selective areas who don’t pass the eleven plus do worse than they would have done in a comprehensive system”.

That’s the same for Northern Ireland, according to the IFS. It examined the evidence from the expansion of grammar schools in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s. Average performance in Northern Ireland improved, it said, but the gap between the top performers and the low performers widened, with pupils not going to grammar schools doing worse.

There is no doubt that grammar schools are good for those who go. There is uncertainty about exactly how much better students do, but they do better.

 

However, there are two big problems. You’ve alluded to one, the students who don’t get in can be very disadvantaged by the process. Secondly,  students from disadvantaged backgrounds don’t take much advantage of grammar schools, leaving them as largely a middle class preserve. So they are pretty much useless as an engine for social mobility.

 

What we actually need are good schools for all. That is possible, but it is expensive. London would be a good model for the rest of the country to follow.

[Baron99 801]

2 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

I don't think that grammar schools are seen as a "dumping ground", quite the opposite!

 

[Edit:  On reflection I think you meant "alternative to".]

Because you describe yourself as a "centrist", i.e. a Lib Dem, New Labour or possibly Greens voter.  [By no stretch of the imagination could the Tories be described as "centrist", other than for propaganda purposes.]

 

Because you are trying to represent Labour as being out of the mainstream for opposing the expansion of grammar schools, whereas the opposite is the case.  The 2019 Tory manifesto doesn't even mention grammar schools.

Ting!  I claim my prize for spotting today's first entry from the Blessed Margaret Thatcher Catechism of Cliché!

 

Like I say, you're really going to have to come up with some new propaganda slogans.  That one went out with the 1990s (or should have done).

 

You seem to have a bit of an obsession with the minutiae of Keir Starmer's upbringing, but my understanding is that he passed his 11-plus, which got him into Reigate Grammar School, which was state-funded at the time but converted to independent status during his time there.  I confess I don't know whether it was his parents or the state that paid his fees after that.

 

Otherwise, see @Pettytom's post.  Nobody is denying that grammar schools and fee-paying schools give an advantage [not necessarily just an educational advantage, by the way - old school ties and all that] to the predominantly better-off children who go to them, under the present system.  The question is more the impact on the vast majority of children who don't go to them - it's this impact that renders them the enemy of social mobility.

And yet some people get so uptight, upset & defensive about Starmer attending a grammar school, which his staunch Labour parents, didn't remove him from, when it became fee paying for, I believe, his 3 final years. 

 

Although it could be argued that they were being truely responsible parents, only wanting the best for their son. It does appear to have given him a good foundation for the rest of his life. 

[Baron99 801]

So the post-mortem report into Labour's crushing defeat at the last General Election has been brought out by the 'Labour Together' project. 

 

Now there's an oxymoron. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53096233

 

What’s really surprising is they actually needed to spend time, money & effort to try & work out why they were abysmal at the GE? 

 

I could have saved them the effort.  Two words, the first begins with a 'J'. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Baron99

[Mister Gee 823]

On 22/09/2018 at 17:47, Baron99 said:

Although not a supporter or fan of Corbyn, like being Trump being elected or Boris taking over the Conservatives, the mischievous side of me would like to see what would happen if he won an election?

 

And of course the UK needs a Lab govt once a generation just to remind us how bad things can really get with uncontrolled borrowing & higher taxes.

How’s your mischievous side feeling like these days?

Edited June 19, 2020 by Mister Gee

[El Cid 220]

On 02/06/2020 at 09:59, the_bloke said:

 More choice is better for all.

On 02/06/2020 at 09:08, the_bloke said:

Average performance in Northern Ireland improved, it said, but the gap between the top performers and the low performers widened, with pupils not going to grammar schools doing worse.

 

Obviously not!

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by El Cid

[El Cid 220]

On 02/06/2020 at 09:59, the_bloke said:

Your feelings on that last point is if you believe that people get a better start in life by going to grammar or fee paying schools or not. I believe they do, you presumably do not.

The parents of children that push them to go to grammar schools are a different kind of parent, so grammar schools will perform better.

 

[Arnold_Lane 0]

35 minutes ago, El Cid said:

The parents of children that push them to go to grammar schools are a different kind of parent, so grammar schools will perform better.

 

I thought entrance as based on an examination.  And the kind of kids that perform well in that exam perform well in other exams.

[alchresearch 215]

3 hours ago, Baron99 said:

So the post-mortem report into Labour's crushing defeat at the last General Election has been brought out by the 'Labour Together' project. 

 

Now there's an oxymoron. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53096233

 

What’s really surprising is they actually needed to spend time, money & effort to try & work out why they were abysmal at the GE? 

 

I could have saved them the effort.  Two words, the first begins with a 'J'. 

Its going to take a long time to build up that trust again.  Its not like people are saying "Hooray, Corbyn has gone, I'll vote Labour again".    They've certainly got my attention once more, but they need to earn my vote again.

 

Sadly there's still a large number of Corbynites still trying to wreck the party and undermine Starmer.    Its funny becuase when Corbyn was in charge, some people on here said that "Blairites"  (read as anyone who didn't like Corbyn)  needed to keep quiet and get behind him.  Shame it doesn't work both ways.  

 

Kier Starmer on Twitter gets more hate from Labour supporters than Tories these days.

Edited June 19, 2020 by alchresearch

[Anna B 1,414]

6 hours ago, Arnold_Lane said:

I thought entrance as based on an examination.  And the kind of kids that perform well in that exam perform well in other exams.

In the 1950's the 11plus exam was mandatory and all children took it at the end of Primary school. Those that passed went on to Grammar schools, and went on to sit exams that qualified them for University or a 'good job. 

 

Those that didn't pass went to the local Secondary Moderns, with the emphasis on  practical training for trade and industry.They left school at 15 or 16, and couldn't take  the necessary exams that qualified them for University.

Thus their course was pretty much set at age 11.

(I know this is an over simplification, but it was a simple system which relied only on passing the 11plus.)

 

Local Comprehensive schools changed all that, in that they provided equal opportunity to cater for all types of children, and they could ostensibly reach for a University education should they so wish, and take the exams.

But of course that depended not just on ability, but things like availability of facilities, quality of the teaching,  aspiration, support and encouragement from home etc, and that was not always equal.

 

Education has been tweaked and messed around with ever since, trying to level the playing field, but disadvantaged children still seem to miss out.  

Edited June 19, 2020 by Anna B