The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

<big snip>

From what I can see, there are 2 sides to private schools:

1. improved (you would hope) education
2. social engineering - your kids don't mix with poorer people, your daughter doesn't marry someone with a basic profession and a low wage, your kids develop accent and speech patterns that cement a position in the upper middle classes, etc.

It's clear that both of these generally improve the prospects of kids send to private schools, and that this is at the expense of kids in state schools.  This is why I believe that private schools are pretty much doing the opposite of charitable work

Whilst that maybe true of private schools its also true of thousands of state schools in leafy middle-class suburbs. I doubt there are any poor kids in my old school - the average three bed family house price is £600K and there are no council houses in the catchment area. It's a specialist maths and science school which Ofsted rates as outstanding and has an excellent Oxbridge record. Parents fight to get their kids admitted. The junior school that feeds it is also rated as outstanding and the battle to get kids in is even tougher.

As usual the debate focuses on what is seen as privilege (shouldn't parents be able to spend their money on what they like?) rather than how to we help pupils from poorer backgrounds succeed. I work with a charity in Stevenage that tries to help poorer pupils - some of our initiatives have included giving them tech (iPads and laptops which poorer families can't afford) and additional tutoring and mentoring so they don't feel like failures. The charity has had a lot of success  and its about time government started funding this sort of initiative as it works. Unfortunately the Tories and Labour just focus on soundbites.

my other post gives my opinions on how to avoid postcode/ofsted school selection by mortgage size

What? By busing in kids from poorer areas? Is there any evidence this works? In my limited experience kids from poorer backgrounds can feel out of place in a school full of middle class kids. It wouldn't work where I live as the local traffic is chaotic in the morning and this would add to it.

The answer is simple - schools in poorer areas should have more funds, smaller class sizes and more teachers for one-to-one tutoring/mentoring as well as specialists who can help with, for example, mental issues brought on by a tough home life.

no,  I was meaning randomly allocating all school places within a town - so some kids would be sent to a school in a poorer area, but the mix would be the same in all schools. Anyway, nobody would ever accept this unless it was already the status quo

There is, however scope in some areas to improve the mixture of kids in schools

Anyway, I agree, better to just improve all schools - which is what has happened since I was a kid I think, even the schools in rough areas now send kids to decent Unis

Evilmags

Like the champagne socialists of islington don't spend buckets on tutoring. People have a right to spend their money on what they want. 

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

no,  I was meaning randomly allocating all school places within a town - so some kids would be sent to a school in a poorer area, but the mix would be the same in all schools. Anyway, nobody would ever accept this unless it was already the status quo

There is, however scope in some areas to improve the mixture of kids in schools

Anyway, I agree, better to just improve all schools - which is what has happened since I was a kid I think, even the schools in rough areas now send kids to decent Unis

It would be a fucking nightmare to allocate places and would lead to a huge increase in parental appeals. 

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

ToneControl said:

no,  I was meaning randomly allocating all school places within a town - so some kids would be sent to a school in a poorer area, but the mix would be the same in all schools. Anyway, nobody would ever accept this unless it was already the status quo

There is, however scope in some areas to improve the mixture of kids in schools

Anyway, I agree, better to just improve all schools - which is what has happened since I was a kid I think, even the schools in rough areas now send kids to decent Unis

It would be a fucking nightmare to allocate places and would lead to a huge increase in parental appeals. 

I know, I was just saying that would be the "fairest" way, no way is it going to happen

ICBM

ToneControl said:

my disclosure is that I was able to move house to ensure my kids went to a good state school, not an option for most people. I concluded that sending my kids to an school with issues to prove my sincerity was not my duty as a parent. This is why I don't criticise those who send their kids to private school, or move heaven and earth to get them into grammar schools, but it would be better if the dilemma were not present

this is why I wonder if it would be good if school places were allocated randomly within a town, and free school buses collected all the kids. Then every school would have a more mixture of social status, ethnicity, religion, etc

From what I can see, there are 2 sides to private schools:

1. improved (you would hope) education
2. social engineering - your kids don't mix with poorer people, your daughter doesn't marry someone with a basic profession and a low wage, your kids develop accent and speech patterns that cement a position in the upper middle classes, etc.

It's clear that both of these generally improve the prospects of kids send to private schools, and that this is at the expense of kids in state schools.  This is why I believe that private schools are pretty much doing the opposite of charitable work

Agreed. The reason I went to a private school was because the local secondary was notorious as a very bad school, and my parents wanted better for me. Especially at the time (middle 70s), when parents had no power to influence anything in the state sector, and no option to apply to a different state school, I don't blame them. Other than possibly for not researching the local schools properly before moving there…

It's quite different today - parents have more options and more power within the state system. Not only with out-of-catchment placements - I'm on the Parent Councils of both my kids' primary and secondary schools, and was involved in helping choose the current headteachers of both, as well as raising many issues with my local councillors and bring some pressure to bear.

That's also why I agree that taking motivated parents as well as high-achieving children away from the state sector is actively harmful and divisive. Even at that I don't want to see people prevented from having the choice if they want to pay for it, but I'm not at all sure that private schools deserve charitable status.

AliGorie

meanwhile on another topical front - (not reported on MSM,
30 tweets on May - Juncker meeting
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe

capo4th

Garthy said:

It isn't just money, parental attitude makes a massive difference. 

This is true and the private schools all have mostly parents who are driven for their children to succeed. This does pull parental resources from the state system. Driven parents = driven kids 16-18 kids in a class more positive learning environment all the kids do better and become more intelligent well rounded individuals. 

Some state schools are excellent all all that happens is that house prices around the catchment area shoot up and local,people are forced out. London schools do face the demographic problem which lowers the standard that can be achieved. 

This is is a really interesting debate/ discussion. My father was mortified that I was going to pay for my sons education he now sees the benefit and understands the location problems we face living in London therefore being almost forced to pay school fees if you can make it work financially. Why can't the standards in all schools be the same? 

Nitefly

AliGorie said:

meanwhile on another topical front - (not reported on MSM,
30 tweets on May - Juncker meeting
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe

It's going to get messy...

Fretwired

Nitefly said:

AliGorie said:

meanwhile on another topical front - (not reported on MSM,
30 tweets on May - Juncker meeting
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe

It's going to get messy...

It's the phony war. May has an election to win and the EU want to meddle, as they did in France. Of course May is going to say we owe you nothing and we'll walk away - she's after pro-Brexit Labour voters. Nothing much will happen until after the German elections. Then it could get messy but my guess is if May wins her stance and tone will change.

ICBM

I'm not sure it's going to get messy - it's going to get very simple. The UK gets nothing. Nada. Zero.

There's no other way all 27 countries could agree a common negotiating position unanimously and so quickly otherwise - if it was more nuanced then there would be differences of opinion over what we should be allowed to get. So it's the hardest of hard Brexits no matter what May says or wants.

They will simply refuse to discuss any future trade agreements whatever until after the two years is up and we're out, and at that point they will hold all the cards.

Heartfeltdawn

capo4th said:

This is true and the private schools all have mostly parents who are driven for their children to succeed. This does pull parental resources from the state system. Driven parents = driven kids 16-18 kids in a class more positive learning environment all the kids do better and become more intelligent well rounded individuals. 

Some state schools are excellent all all that happens is that house prices around the catchment area shoot up and local,people are forced out. London schools do face the demographic problem which lowers the standard that can be achieved. 

This is is a really interesting debate/ discussion. My father was mortified that I was going to pay for my sons education he now sees the benefit and understands the location problems we face living in London therefore being almost forced to pay school fees if you can make it work financially. Why can't the standards in all schools be the same? 

Because so many of the variables are external to the school ie. they can't be controlled by Ofsted, a national curriculum, best practice etc. A school can't control the social climate in case of major industry going down in an area causing a resulting depression. It can't control parental input, it can't force kids to do homework. 

Teachers can't make parents do their job better but successive governments have put the emphasis onto teachers to make up for parental shortcomings. The recent cases of parents taking kids out during school term has been marked by being one of the few times in the last 20 years that I've been studying education (ed. policy was half of my university time) that a government actually dared to criticise parents. The role of the parent in the education process is one that is underplayed badly by politicians and quite deliberately in my view. Can't be seen to criticise potential voters now, can we? 

London is a very difficult area educationally. When I wrote a report on educational policy within Birmingham, I visited a number of schools and went through the usual social and economic problems. London is so magnified that it makes things very difficult indeed. In Birmingham, it might have been one electoral ward as a whole that was poor and the next was far wealthier. You'd see the corresponding differences educationally. In London, it's on a smaller scale. It's not a borough that is poor or an electoral ward, it can be the polarity between one street of council blocks leading onto something far far wealthier. Islington is a prime example of this. Mags regularly comments about the Islington champagne socialists but this bounces against the rate of free school meals within that area:

http://urbs.london/falling-numbers-for-free-school-meals-but-rates-still-among-highest-in-country/4228

You then consider Kensington and Chelsea with a high free meal rate balanced against 2012 data that says there are 40 independent schools in the borough out of 78 schools in total. Rich versus poor in a nutshell. 

It'd be interesting going through similar stats for somewhere like New York, which does have similar pockets of poverty mixing so closely with wealth. 

Fretwired

ICBM said:

I'm not sure it's going to get messy - it's going to get very simple. The UK gets nothing. Nada. Zero.

I think they'll be a deal. The UK will pay to be a member, keep free movement with a brake, EU laws and rules so that it's easy for us to rejoin in the future. May is really a remainer and she won't stand for election again, meaning someone else will have the wrath of the Brexiteers to deal with ... ;-)

capo4th

Where are all those brexiters now ? Saying how good things will be ....

Probably all enjoying their reduced spending power and increased weekly outgoings. 

Evilmags

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

I'm not sure it's going to get messy - it's going to get very simple. The UK gets nothing. Nada. Zero.

I think they'll be a deal. The UK will pay to be a member, keep free movement with a brake, EU laws and rules so that it's easy for us to rejoin in the future. May is really a remainer and she won't stand for election again, meaning someone else will have the wrath of the Brexiteers to deal with ... ;-)

The deal is simple. The UK pays for and provides Europe in general and Germany in particular's defense. Start playing ball or pay your own would be my starting point. Mr Junkets doesn't have a leg to stand on and is a bluffing offensive little toad. Read Yannis Varoufakis 's account of dealing with the EU. It is quite sinister. They need to be stood up to and if need be put back in their box through a threat to withdraw defence. 

Garthy

AliGorie said:

meanwhile on another topical front - (not reported on MSM,
30 tweets on May - Juncker meeting
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe

Is there a way to read that without signing up to twitter?

ICBM

Evilmags said:

The deal is simple. The UK pays for and provides Europe in general and Germany in particular's defense. Start playing ball or pay your own would be my starting point. Mr Junkets doesn't have a leg to stand on and is a bluffing offensive little toad. Read Yannis Varoufakis 's account of dealing with the EU. It is quite sinister. They need to be stood up to and if need be put back in their box through a threat to withdraw defence. 

That will achieve nothing other than to hand leadership of European defence straight to the French.

Varoufakis was absolutely right all the way through the Greek crisis, but what good did it do him or Greece? He was sacked and Greece remained in the Euro on punitive terms. (Which will eventually unravel again.)

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Evilmags said:

The deal is simple. The UK pays for and provides Europe in general and Germany in particular's defense. Start playing ball or pay your own would be my starting point. Mr Junkets doesn't have a leg to stand on and is a bluffing offensive little toad. Read Yannis Varoufakis 's account of dealing with the EU. It is quite sinister. They need to be stood up to and if need be put back in their box through a threat to withdraw defence. 

That will achieve nothing other than to hand leadership of European defence straight to the French.

Varoufakis was absolutely right all the way through the Greek crisis, but what good did it do him or Greece? He was sacked and Greece remained in the Euro on punitive terms. (Which will eventually unravel again.)

Which they don't want as they'll have to deal with the US which will not be popular in France.

The elephant in the room for the EU is the budget. The UK are one of the few net contributors. If we leave without a deal budgets will need to be slashed or the likes of Germany will have to pay more.

Add to that French, Italian and Spanish farmers who will lose access to the UK market and French and Spanish fishermen who plunder UK waters  who will have to go elsewhere for fish, plus other interest groups and there's a toxic cocktail of pain for the EU if they don't compromise.

scrumhalf

Gloira Del Piero, current MP and prospective Labour candidate for Ashfield and Eastwood has released a video urging people to get out and vote in the general election.

The one being held on 9th June.

Has ther international date line moved?

ThePrettyDamned

capo4th said:

Where are all those brexiters now ? Saying how good things will be ....

Probably all enjoying their reduced spending power and increased weekly outgoings. 

No idea, but our bremainer prime minister is still talking about strong leadership and a hard brexit. 

ToneControl

capo4th said:

Garthy said:

It isn't just money, parental attitude makes a massive difference. 

This is true and the private schools all have mostly parents who are driven for their children to succeed. This does pull parental resources from the state system. Driven parents = driven kids 16-18 kids in a class more positive learning environment all the kids do better and become more intelligent well rounded individuals. 

Some state schools are excellent all all that happens is that house prices around the catchment area shoot up and local,people are forced out. London schools do face the demographic problem which lowers the standard that can be achieved. 

This is is a really interesting debate/ discussion. My father was mortified that I was going to pay for my sons education he now sees the benefit and understands the location problems we face living in London therefore being almost forced to pay school fees if you can make it work financially. Why can't the standards in all schools be the same? 

I thought I read reports a year ago that London state schools were on average much better than the rest of England?