British Politics Thread.

[Mr Mystery]

There's me thinking lots of people from less well off backgrounds saw grammar schools as their leg up. And that the current system in state schools, where house prices rise in good school catchment areas go up - ensuring wealth plays a factor anyway.

And they absolutely should be this. Just as kids with special educational needs deserve the extra efforts made for them, kids at the other end of that spectrum need an environment which will help them to really achieve their potential - regardless of their background.

But, when more affluent parents can and will pay through the nose to ensure their kid passes the test, it all falls apart as a concept, and does effectively become education segregation.

Hence my two minds. There's nothing wrong with Academically Elite schooling. There's a strong need for it. But it's the application and acceptance process which has been corrupted. Until that's sorted out, what's the point?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Plus there's the cost of extracurricular activity. The kid that can afford swimming lessons outside of class is the kid we'd send to the Olympics, not the one who gets a single term of swimming a year that ends in middle school.

Inequality is a complicated problem. :/

[Mr Mystery]

That's quite the false equivalency there though.

Education is important. We've still got one of the best education systems in the world, and we've every right to be insanely proud of that.

But as Denzark said, Grammars are there for a purpose - but it's one they're just not achieving right now, because the entry requirements are being skewed by extra spending.

Each Grammar will have it's own preferred entry requirements. Some might prefer kids that score a certain level on the 11+. Now, you take a kid with natural aptitude, and they might just scrape that. Whereas a kid with a lesser aptitude is tutored to tears, and that boost puts them one point about.

Kid sans tutoring misses out, even though the kid they missed out to is going to need ongoing support from the school, affecting it's resources. That's not fair, especially if the other kid winds up unchallenged and bored in the local comp.

What a waste of a brilliant resource - both the kid and school place. The knock on effect that can have for a family and wider society can't be underestimated.

[Haighus]

There's me thinking lots of people from less well off backgrounds saw grammar schools as their leg up. And that the current system in state schools, where house prices rise in good school catchment areas go up - ensuring wealth plays a factor anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Loving Kirsten's blatant classism btw.

Grammar Schools - empirically bad.

The empirical evidence is so strong that the Tories want them back - just to separate their 'class' from 'working class' - irrespective of results.

OFSTED don't want 'em. Unions don't want 'em. Ummm - the Unions loathe OFSTED - who is right then?

Kirsten's sister did a whole A-level course work of analysis - must be better than the entire Department for Education - sign her up as a consultant and make her education minister when a safe seat comes up for by-election.

I don't think the government (in general, not just the current one) is very good at using evidence to back up it's policy decisions, which is a significant part of why I advocate that the NHS becomes an entirely evidence-based institution protected from government meddling. How many government pilot studies have been run, only to have their results ignored and the policy change happen anyway? Rather a lot unfortunately.

[Denzark]

Got anything to support your points other than ad hominem jabs?

This is what wikipedia says ad hominem is:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

With the exception of calling her a classist - she is (she made a comment 'posh wankers' above which is how I evidence that claim) - where do my comments attack character, motive or other attribute rather than attacking the substance of the argument?

I fully concede to using sarcasm - not the most effective or mature debating tool - but, if you can't pick the gist of what I was saying out, I'll try and strip it out point by point:

Kirsten says Grammar schools are empirically bad. I have highlighted that it makes no sense for that to be the case, because that would mean those that do want them back, want them back only because it would separate the classes, not ensure results effectiveness.

As Kirsten mentioned neither OFSTED nor the Unions want Grammar schools, I pointed out that the teaching unions don't like OFSTED. This highlights that not every group can be correct all the time - being an official body to do with education doesn't automatically give your views legitimacy.

Kirsten mentions her sister's A-level sociology course. My comment is that it is a bit silly to assume that the course content of an A-level course is more knowledgeable than the instigaters of government policy.

Is that clearer?

[Kirsten]

oh no, pointless ****stain Denzark doesn't like something, whatever shall I do?

they are clearly very bad. why the hell would the teaching union and ofsted agreeing on something somehow make it wrong? the government regularly ignores evidence when policy making. look at the drugs policy. Grammar schools are an awful idea, they achieve nothing positive at all. State schools have roughly 18% of their students receiving free school meals. grammar schools? less than 2% of their students receive free meals. why? because they are overwhelmingly from wealthy, privileged backgrounds. we know this is a fact. bringing them back will lead to a greater class divide and continue the shocking trend of increasing the wage gap between people like the tories, and everyone else.

[Denzark]

oh no, pointless ****stain Denzark doesn't like something, whatever shall I do?

Is that an ad hominem jab CoffeeGrunt?

[Haighus]

I think goverments often make changes for the sake of making a change and producing a "legacy" of some kind. Often this is not something that turns out to be a good idea (the wave 1 pilot studies for the NHS which already show that 7-day GPs opening on a Sunday is pretty much pointless¹), sometimes it does turn out ok (CCGs seem to be functioning as a system). As I pointed out before, governments are very willing to ignore evidence if it doesn't suit their agenda.

1. [URL]https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/pmcf-wv-one-eval-report.pdf[/URL]

[Psychosplodge]

Not impressed with the proposed boundary changes, Area I live in is being lopped off the south east Sheffield one and being stuck on some random assortment of bits of south yorkshire/derbyshire/nottinghamshire with little in common and under different authorities. I imagine the rest are equally ill considered.

[Mr Mystery]

Or plain make it up - see Nigel Farage's 'breaking point' poster. Or pretty much all the promises made by Vote Leave.

The education system just isn't the place for advancing any given political agenda. We need something like Grammar schools, just as we need Special Needs Schools, because 'one-size-fits-all' just can't be applied.

All we need to do is remove the issue of affluence affecting who goes where. That gets you closer to social mobility, and helps to ensure the precious resource that are the kids of the nation (oh dear god, how Right On 80's does that read?) isn't wasted or squandered.

I mean, look at GCSE Maths. I was good at that. Have always been good with numbers. Yet I've not used most of what I was taught since - it was arguably too specialised. But what of those who struggle with Maths? Who can't see the point? Why are we teaching them pure theory? Why aren't Schools able to frame it in real-world terms? Explain where Maths appears in life (everywhere, pretty much). Electricians, Builders, Carpenters, IT Engineers all make heavy use of Maths, albeit at a relatively straight forward level (sand to cement ratios etc, and why they're really important to get right if like, you don't want that thing you just built to fall over).

Likewise English. Is it more important that people can read, or that they're able to sit there looking all thoughtful and trying to workout the subtext? Well, that's gonna vary from person to person. Me, I've been able to read since I was four - parents did a bang up job right there. And I enjoy reading. But not everyone does. Not everyone is encouraged to read at home. So why are the books on the curriculum so mind numbingly dull and 'worthy'. From the Gov.uk Website...

•develop an appreciation and love of reading, and read increasingly challenging material independently through: •reading a wide range of fiction and non-fiction, including in particular whole books, short stories, poems and plays with a wide coverage of genres, historical periods, forms and authors, including high-quality works from English literature, both pre-1914 and contemporary, including prose, poetry and drama; Shakespeare (2 plays) and seminal world literature

Why? Why why why? I'm sure as adults we've all picked up promising books we've struggled to get through - imagine being someone not confident with their reading being asked to spot the one joke in a Shakespeare play? How off putting is that? Why not give them something else? Hell, even an autobiography of a footballer or what have you - anything that they might actually want to read??

In short? Different Strokes For Different Folks.