|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 27, 2017 20:23:43 GMT
I increasingly think that while the comprehensive system is superior to a grammar/secondary modern system it is not the answer to all our educational woes. It seems that whatever school you put WC children in, if the backing isn't there at home, the difference in terms of outcomes will be slight. As andrew111 says this is evidenced in Kirklees where WC British Asian children and WC White British children, despite coming from households with very similar incomes, go down very different roads in terms of academic achievement and social mobility. So it seems like the battle is not with the system as much as the attitudes of the parents and through what prism they bring their children up to see education. I know it sounds a bit nanny state but maybe provide poorer parents with book tokens for children's books or have compulsory trips to the library for all new parents. I am now working in education. I am aware of cases where parents won't even turn up to parents' evenings or even send their kids to school with a breakfast in them (this isn't even the kids who get free school meals). It doesn't matter what the system is- there are always families who will not support their kids' education. I was lucky to have parents who left school at 16 but who were very, very keen that I get an education. I get your point but there's no appetite in this country for anything smacking of compulsion- forcing people to take an interest in their kids' education is regarded as an imposition by some, and patronising the poor by others. No, no, no. You're not allowed to say that. All parents want to do the best for their children. (Well, that's what I was told by the "professionals" when I (at a relevant Council meeting) dared to suggest that some parents didn't give a t*** about their children's well-being and future.) |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 27, 2017 20:26:12 GMT
First I don't think children can be held responsible for the choices of their parents. Second the presence of HGS means that neighbouring "comprehensives" simply aren't Quite. If there are grammar schools in an area it is highly misleading to refer to other secondary schools which share their catchment areas as "comprehensives", and I don't see anything hypocritical about parents who happen to live in such areas wanting their children to go to the local grammar, whether they support the selective system or not. It depends on the proportions of grammar and non-grammar schools. In Colchester there are two single-sex grammar schools and I am entirely comfortable with describing all the other secondary schools in the town as comprehensives, since they all get a decent proportion of academically able pupils. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 27, 2017 21:31:00 GMT
Quite. If there are grammar schools in an area it is highly misleading to refer to other secondary schools which share their catchment areas as "comprehensives", and I don't see anything hypocritical about parents who happen to live in such areas wanting their children to go to the local grammar, whether they support the selective system or not. It depends on the proportions of grammar and non-grammar schools. In Colchester there are two single-sex grammar schools and I am entirely comfortable with describing all the other secondary schools in the town as comprehensives, since they all get a decent proportion of academically able pupils. Very similar situation in Gloucestershire. Also Warwickshire: 5 grammar schools and 30 "non-selective secondary schools". I don't personally know anything about the latter but the numbers make it unlikely that they are old-fashioned "secondary moderns." (Furthermore, the ideology behind the grammar/secondary modern divide assumed that the alternative to a highly academic education was to leave school without 'O' levels and go into some sort of manual labour, skilled or otherwise. This doesn't really mesh with the 21st century work place at all.) |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 27, 2017 21:36:44 GMT
I increasingly think that while the comprehensive system is superior to a grammar/secondary modern system it is not the answer to all our educational woes. It seems that whatever school you put WC children in, if the backing isn't there at home, the difference in terms of outcomes will be slight. As andrew111 says this is evidenced in Kirklees where WC British Asian children and WC White British children, despite coming from households with very similar incomes, go down very different roads in terms of academic achievement and social mobility. So it seems like the battle is not with the system as much as the attitudes of the parents and through what prism they bring their children up to see education. I know it sounds a bit nanny state but maybe provide poorer parents with book tokens for children's books or have compulsory trips to the library for all new parents. I am now working in education. I am aware of cases where parents won't even turn up to parents' evenings or even send their kids to school with a breakfast in them (this isn't even the kids who get free school meals). It doesn't matter what the system is- there are always families who will not support their kids' education. I was lucky to have parents who left school at 16 but who were very, very keen that I get an education. I get your point but there's no appetite in this country for anything smacking of compulsion- forcing people to take an interest in their kids' education is regarded as an imposition by some, and patronising the poor by others. I very strongly agree with this post and @benjl's, which you quote. I would say that forcing people to take an interest is unlikely to be effective, I am happier with encouraging them to do so. TBF there are people who, like your parents, are totally supportive but could do with help in how to do so; and others who are perhaps unaware of how the world has changed since they left school and of the potential benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 27, 2017 21:45:45 GMT
Of course - there are probably millions.   I think its reasonable to say that while Tory and Labour activists strongly disagree we do understand each other. Whereas we both pretty much hate the LibDems - round here largely because of their dirty campaigning and Hocus Focus lie-sheets. Indeed the Tories put up candidates in our ward one year because they were concerned thst if they didn't the LibDems would get in. I used to know a former Tory councillor - jigger's parents would remember her. Jennie Kemp. She was unusual as a businesswoman in the day when few women held those jobs - she was head of personnel for Cunard. Always remember having a talk about gay rights with her and she saying that she really couldn't see what all the fuss was about and she didn't know how shed have managed to staff the cruise ships without them - she said to me "they used to call them Jennie's Queens!" Anyway she said to me as well that she lost her council seat to Labour, but that she'd always regarded the Labour councillors as people who she disagreed with but played fair. Whereas the emergence of the Liberals meant nasty campaigning and behaviour in council. That was my experience on the police authority as well which I sat on as an independent community rep. Ah, a fine example of the noble principles of the Labour and Conservative parties relative to the vile sneaky LibDems. God forbid that the electorate, faced with a straight LD-Labour choice, should actually choose the LD. So much better that the Tories should collude with Labour to ensure that a Labour candidate, whose principles they entirely disagree with, should be elected. How principled. How cosy. God bless the status quo and all who sail in her. Has the thought of trusting the voters occurred to you lot? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 27, 2017 22:21:24 GMT
I think its reasonable to say that while Tory and Labour activists strongly disagree we do understand each other. Whereas we both pretty much hate the LibDems - round here largely because of their dirty campaigning and Hocus Focus lie-sheets. Indeed the Tories put up candidates in our ward one year because they were concerned thst if they didn't the LibDems would get in. I used to know a former Tory councillor - jigger's parents would remember her. Jennie Kemp. She was unusual as a businesswoman in the day when few women held those jobs - she was head of personnel for Cunard. Always remember having a talk about gay rights with her and she saying that she really couldn't see what all the fuss was about and she didn't know how shed have managed to staff the cruise ships without them - she said to me "they used to call them Jennie's Queens!" Anyway she said to me as well that she lost her council seat to Labour, but that she'd always regarded the Labour councillors as people who she disagreed with but played fair. Whereas the emergence of the Liberals meant nasty campaigning and behaviour in council. That was my experience on the police authority as well which I sat on as an independent community rep. Ah, a fine example of the noble principles of the Labour and Conservative parties relative to the vile sneaky LibDems. God forbid that the electorate, faced with a straight LD-Labour choice, should actually choose the LD. So much better that the Tories should collude with Labour to ensure that a Labour candidate, whose principles they entirely disagree with, should be elected. How principled. How cosy. God bless the status quo and all who sail in her. Has the thought of trusting the voters occurred to you lot? There appears to be a stampede of high horses from all sides........ |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 27, 2017 22:26:59 GMT
Well, let some and others complain and let's do the right thing? I would be inclined to agree. But what kind of sanctions is society willing to impose? not very many i suspect except in the most egregrious cases. All you can do is make provision for the children on the basis that parents might not do. Breakfast clubs are a good example of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 27, 2017 22:32:55 GMT
I would be inclined to agree. But what kind of sanctions is society willing to impose? not very many i suspect except in the most egregrious cases. All you can do is make provision for the children on the basis that parents might not do. Breakfast clubs are a good example of this. Breakfast clubs are a very good thing indeed. Only danger is that all the kids decide that each of them is a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal. I'll get my sixteen candles. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 27, 2017 22:38:51 GMT
I think its reasonable to say that while Tory and Labour activists strongly disagree we do understand each other. Whereas we both pretty much hate the LibDems - round here largely because of their dirty campaigning and Hocus Focus lie-sheets. Indeed the Tories put up candidates in our ward one year because they were concerned thst if they didn't the LibDems would get in. I used to know a former Tory councillor - jigger's parents would remember her. Jennie Kemp. She was unusual as a businesswoman in the day when few women held those jobs - she was head of personnel for Cunard. Always remember having a talk about gay rights with her and she saying that she really couldn't see what all the fuss was about and she didn't know how shed have managed to staff the cruise ships without them - she said to me "they used to call them Jennie's Queens!" Anyway she said to me as well that she lost her council seat to Labour, but that she'd always regarded the Labour councillors as people who she disagreed with but played fair. Whereas the emergence of the Liberals meant nasty campaigning and behaviour in council. That was my experience on the police authority as well which I sat on as an independent community rep. Ah, a fine example of the noble principles of the Labour and Conservative parties relative to the vile sneaky LibDems. God forbid that the electorate, faced with a straight LD-Labour choice, should actually choose the LD. So much better that the Tories should collude with Labour to ensure that a Labour candidate, whose principles they entirely disagree with, should be elected. How principled. How cosy. God bless the status quo and all who sail in her. Has the thought of trusting the voters occurred to you lot? But, a perfectly legitimate ploy, not to preference the policies and ideals of Labour, but to stall the progress of LDs who are in some places seen to be an insidious threat to the two party duopoly and also to parliamentary aspirations in a bigger area. Once they get a foothold they might build on it and gain enough strength to cascade out into areas where we are currently strong enough to hold seats or to reliably expect to win them at some times from the Labour Party. We see the LDs as a form of sickness that erodes the primacy of the ruling duopoly and thus more important to be beaten than any other party. I have voted Conservative, Independent Conservative, Independent, UKIP, Labour and once SDP..........but never Liberal or LD......nor ever will. I voted Conservative here in Ross, Skye and Lochaber and we displaced the LDs to third. But I would still have voted Conservative even if the likely contest was too close to call and prefer the SNP to hold the seat rather than see the LDs re-take it; because I see no national nor long term threat from the SNP, but a very real threat from a rampant LD Party. So thump it whenever and wherever it raises its head. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 27, 2017 22:47:01 GMT
I think its reasonable to say that while Tory and Labour activists strongly disagree we do understand each other. Whereas we both pretty much hate the LibDems - round here largely because of their dirty campaigning and Hocus Focus lie-sheets. Indeed the Tories put up candidates in our ward one year because they were concerned thst if they didn't the LibDems would get in. I used to know a former Tory councillor - jigger's parents would remember her. Jennie Kemp. She was unusual as a businesswoman in the day when few women held those jobs - she was head of personnel for Cunard. Always remember having a talk about gay rights with her and she saying that she really couldn't see what all the fuss was about and she didn't know how shed have managed to staff the cruise ships without them - she said to me "they used to call them Jennie's Queens!" Anyway she said to me as well that she lost her council seat to Labour, but that she'd always regarded the Labour councillors as people who she disagreed with but played fair. Whereas the emergence of the Liberals meant nasty campaigning and behaviour in council. That was my experience on the police authority as well which I sat on as an independent community rep. Ah, a fine example of the noble principles of the Labour and Conservative parties relative to the vile sneaky LibDems. God forbid that the electorate, faced with a straight LD-Labour choice, should actually choose the LD. So much better that the Tories should collude with Labour to ensure that a Labour candidate, whose principles they entirely disagree with, should be elected. How principled. How cosy. God bless the status quo and all who sail in her. Has the thought of trusting the voters occurred to you lot? Take it up with the as-was Crosby Tories. It was one of them who told me! It wasn't anything to do with us but they concluded that given the choice (and they haven't a prayer in this ward) they didn't want the LibDems to win. Interestingly, the LibDems didn't stand last time after their vote had fallen to double figures - such is their decline here |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 27, 2017 22:48:39 GMT
not very many i suspect except in the most egregrious cases. All you can do is make provision for the children on the basis that parents might not do. Breakfast clubs are a good example of this. Breakfast clubs are a very good thing indeed. Only danger is that all the kids decide that each of them is a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal. I'll get my sixteen candles. You do realise that some on here are going to wonder what this post means? Not me, though |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 27, 2017 23:06:12 GMT
Ah, a fine example of the noble principles of the Labour and Conservative parties relative to the vile sneaky LibDems. God forbid that the electorate, faced with a straight LD-Labour choice, should actually choose the LD. So much better that the Tories should collude with Labour to ensure that a Labour candidate, whose principles they entirely disagree with, should be elected. How principled. How cosy. God bless the status quo and all who sail in her. Has the thought of trusting the voters occurred to you lot? But, a perfectly legitimate ploy, not to preference the policies and ideals of Labour, but to stall the progress of LDs who are in some places seen to be an insidious threat to the two party duopoly and also to parliamentary aspirations in a bigger area. Once they get a foothold they might build on it and gain enough strength to cascade out into areas where we are currently strong enough to hold seats or to reliably expect to win them at some times from the Labour Party. We see the LDs as a form of sickness that erodes the primacy of the ruling duopoly and thus more important to be beaten than any other party. I have voted Conservative, Independent Conservative, Independent, UKIP, Labour and once SDP..........but never Liberal or LD......nor ever will. I voted Conservative here in Ross, Skye and Lochaber and we displaced the LDs to third. But I would still have voted Conservative even if the likely contest was too close to call and prefer the SNP to hold the seat rather than see the LDs re-take it; because I see no national nor long term threat from the SNP, but a very real threat from a rampant LD Party. So thump it whenever and wherever it raises its head. Fine, Carlton, perfectly sensible tactical stuff. Of course a threat to the duopoly has to be crushed if you are a member of the duopoly - if our predecessors had been more ruthless about that (rather than splitting into splinters) we might be one of the duopoly today. I don't have a problem with that - it is our job to put the contrary case. But don't try to kid me that it has anything to do with principles though. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,137 
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 27, 2017 23:10:56 GMT
not very many i suspect except in the most egregrious cases. All you can do is make provision for the children on the basis that parents might not do. Breakfast clubs are a good example of this. Breakfast clubs are a very good thing indeed. Only danger is that all the kids decide that each of them is a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal. I'll get my sixteen candles. Other Brat Pack films are also available. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 27, 2017 23:14:42 GMT
But, a perfectly legitimate ploy, not to preference the policies and ideals of Labour, but to stall the progress of LDs who are in some places seen to be an insidious threat to the two party duopoly and also to parliamentary aspirations in a bigger area. Once they get a foothold they might build on it and gain enough strength to cascade out into areas where we are currently strong enough to hold seats or to reliably expect to win them at some times from the Labour Party. We see the LDs as a form of sickness that erodes the primacy of the ruling duopoly and thus more important to be beaten than any other party. I have voted Conservative, Independent Conservative, Independent, UKIP, Labour and once SDP..........but never Liberal or LD......nor ever will. I voted Conservative here in Ross, Skye and Lochaber and we displaced the LDs to third. But I would still have voted Conservative even if the likely contest was too close to call and prefer the SNP to hold the seat rather than see the LDs re-take it; because I see no national nor long term threat from the SNP, but a very real threat from a rampant LD Party. So thump it whenever and wherever it raises its head. Fine, Carlton, perfectly sensible tactical stuff. Of course a threat to the duopoly has to be crushed if you are a member of the duopoly - if our predecessors had been more ruthless about that (rather than splitting into splinters) we might be one of the duopoly today. I don't have a problem with that - it is our job to put the contrary case. But don't try to kid me that it has anything to do with principles though. Yes. You gave up power in the duopoly for the pleasures of internal factionalism. And, yes, this is about gaining and holding power. Principles do not come into it. And by that I do not mean it is un-principled, but that principles do not come into it. What is important is the long term threat. I see a large proportion of the LD votes to be Floating/Protest or 'I like that nice Mr. X'. We are not fighting policy or ideals but a movement that can mobilise a 'following' by other means. It is an incohate opponent unlike Labour who are the formal opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 27, 2017 23:54:35 GMT
Deciphering such comments can be a Weird Science.
|
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 28, 2017 0:14:07 GMT
I've probably misunderstood you, but are you suggesting that there are no Tories in Sheffield? Because, although I haven't checked, I would have thought that the Tories came second in Sheffield in the General election this June. Correct. Labour: 56, LibDem: 20, UKIP: 4, Green: 4. No Tories since 2008, see link. I knew that there were no Tory councillors in Sheffield but I would have thought, given their relatively respectable support in June, that there would be decent sized Tory associations. If that's not the case then that starkly shows the lack of correlation between membership size and popular support. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 28, 2017 10:02:16 GMT
Droylsden east result lab 1064 Tory 577 LibDem 63 Green60 I didn't think there were that many Tories in Droylsden. UKIP polled over 30% here in both 2015 and 2016 and close to 40% in 2014, so quite a few votes for the Tories to harvest there. Incidentally the Tories not even standing here in 2015 is pretty unusual for a MBC division. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 28, 2017 10:10:10 GMT
Deciphering such comments can be a Weird Science. only in your electric dreams... |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 28, 2017 10:12:27 GMT
not very many i suspect except in the most egregrious cases. All you can do is make provision for the children on the basis that parents might not do. Breakfast clubs are a good example of this. Breakfast clubs are a very good thing indeed. Only danger is that all the kids decide that each of them is a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal. I'll get my sixteen candles. Tell them they'd look pretty in pink - that'd put a stop to it. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,784
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 28, 2017 20:03:42 GMT
Correct. Labour: 56, LibDem: 20, UKIP: 4, Green: 4. No Tories since 2008, see link. I knew that there were no Tory councillors in Sheffield but I would have thought, given their relatively respectable support in June, that there would be decent sized Tory associations. If that's not the case then that starkly shows the lack of correlation between membership size and popular support. I think a few years ago the Hallam Conservative Association sold or disposed of its base on Baslow Road and Sheffield is now a branch of South Yorkshire Conservatives based in Penistone. |
|
