Why I am buying gold

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I really don't see why grouping children into

> schools that are more educationally comparable is

> such a bad idea. Teaching a widely differing

> group of kids must be really difficult. The smart

> kids get bored; the kids that need extra help

> don't get it.

>

> Just because it's been poorly implemented before,

> doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

>

> If only the UK was as pragmatic as the Germans -

> their school system would make your anti-grammer

> person's head explode.

I've taught a lot of classes of widely differing kids, if you do it right the brightest help the less able (and learn by doing so) and all learn, it's a lovely thing to see. What grammar schools as run in this country up to now and under the currently proposed model do is simply write off 80% of the student cohort as being pretty much worthless at the age of eleven.

I know it's not the done thing, apparently, to correct spelling on discussion boards, but for heaven's sake, grammar has two as and no es.

[rendelharris]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the Tories are always inclined to sign up to

> selection - it resonates with their infantile

> social Darwinist fantasies ('natural' differences

> in 'ability' need to be given a helping hand at an

> early age to find full expression - for the social

> is otherwise seen as likely to suffocate the

> development of the 'gifted'). The result of such

> policies is to stabilise social reproduction in

> exactly the way 'conservatives' want (that

> probabilistically you will do very much better if

> you are of the offspring of privilege).

>

> Grammar schools are an exercise in the most

> terrible bad faith here: they promise an 'escape'

> for a tiny number of children from very

> disadvantaged families (whereas, as with both my

> parents, they actually tend to be populated by

> people from the middle class who cant quite manage

> private school fees) so 'prove' that 'natural'

> selection is working and we don't have to worry

> about social reproduction (or the iniquities of

> private education). The tests are at an arbitrary

> age of the child and create a monstrous division

> between those who pass and those who fail (think

> of the person who just fails) on an image of

> 'intelligence' that is hocus pocus (i.e.

> one-dimensional, asserted to be validly measured

> by 'IQ' tests etc etc).

Well said sir or madam, rem acu tetigisti (there's me grammar school education compulsory Latin coming out!).

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I really don't see why grouping children into

> > schools that are more educationally comparable

> is

> > such a bad idea. Teaching a widely differing

> > group of kids must be really difficult. The

> smart

> > kids get bored; the kids that need extra help

> > don't get it.

> >

> > Just because it's been poorly implemented

> before,

> > doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

> >

> > If only the UK was as pragmatic as the Germans

> -

> > their school system would make your

> anti-grammer

> > person's head explode.

>

> I've taught a lot of classes of widely differing

> kids, if you do it right the brightest help the

> less able (and learn by doing so) and all learn,

> it's a lovely thing to see.

The bright kids might learn how to teach, but are they actually achieving more themselves? Are they really achieving the best they can?

> What grammar schools as run in this country up to now and under the

> currently proposed model do is simply write off 80% of the student cohort as being pretty much

> worthless at the age of eleven.

(and a quote from earlier)

> Sums it up: if grammar schools will provide a superior education, it follows logically that those

> who don't go to them will receive an inferior education.

By the same logic, even if you ban grammar schools, that still makes the non-grammar school education inferior to what could be. So, your solution is to make all students go through the same 'inferior' (i.e. non-grammar school) education? Instead of 'writing off' 80%, you'd rather 'write off' 100%?

Why should average be the most we give the kids?

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Instead of 'writing off' 80%, you'd

> rather 'write off' 100%?

>

> Why should average be the most we give the kids?

No, that argument doesn't work (and it's just a silly accusation, would I be bothering even to have this discussion if I want to write off 100% of kids?). We can give kids a wonderful education but still make it available to 100% of them. What your argument assumes is infinite resources, which don't exist. For grammar schools to provide a superior education they need more resources, the best teachers and smaller class sizes. As the amount of funding and the pool of really good teachers is finite, those resources and teachers have to be taken away from the lower 80% so that the top 20% can succeed. I want to see a superb education for all, not just those kids whose parents can afford a private tutor to get them through the 11+.

[Jenny1]

I'd be careful about giving too much attention to this announcement (vital though education policy is). I suspect the government is keen to distract us from their lack of post-EU planning.

[Jenny1]

...and now to ignore my own advice.

I want to pick up on Loz's point about the German system. I'm against TM's policy, but admire the German system. This is because the German system is aimed at providing high quality specialist education, both academic and non-academic.(As per discussion on the Today programme just pre 0900). This is not what the government is proposing.

[rendelharris]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...and now to ignore my own advice.

>

> I want to pick up on Loz's point about the German

> system. I'm against TM's policy, but admire the

> German system. This is because the German system

> is aimed at providing high quality specialist

> education, both academic and non-academic.(As per

> discussion on the Today programme just pre 0900).

> This is not what the government is proposing.

Yes, there's a vast gulf between providing a variety of routes and essentially saying everyone will get pretty much the same education but 20% chosen at an arbitrary point will have it provided in a far superior manner.

[????]

but that's how it worked in the past - there's a vast difference between saying schools can choose to become selective grammar schools and "from 2017 alll schools will be become Grammar Schools or Secondary Moderns" as always most opposition to change in Education comes from the deeply small 'c' conservative Public Sector unions and the regressive elements of the left (ie most of it).

[*Bob*]

What is there to say on the subject of state, private and grammar in England that hasn?t been said many times over? The system is screwy, unfair, playable, riven by class and social division and of course - economics.

Will I eschew 'the game', and make a principled stand against the tide from this sea of unfairness - in the hope of achieving a better educational system for all..?

.. will I bollocks. I?ll be doing all I can to crowbar our kid into the best possible place, using any reasonable means at my disposal.

[rendelharris]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but that's how it worked in the past - there's a

> vast difference between saying schools can choose

> to become selective grammar schools and "from 2017

> alll schools will be become Grammar Schools or

> Secondary Moderns" as always most opposition to

> change in Education comes from the deeply small

> 'c' conservative Public Sector unions and the

> regressive elements of the left (ie most of it).

Or in this case the (Tory appointed) Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Schools: bringing back grammar schools is ?tosh and nonsense? and would be a ?profoundly retrograde step?.

Or Conservative MP Dr.Sarah Woolaston: ?If you stand on the steps of Downing Street and talk about wanting to reduce inequality, I think you have to follow the evidence and, I?m afraid, sooner or later you have to deliver on evidence-based policies. I think we need to be very careful that we?re not ending up giving one message but introducing policies that go in the opposite direction.?

Or David Cameron: "The debate on grammars is pointless, because parents fundamentally don?t want their children divided into sheep and goats at the age of 11."

Or the significant number of Tory backbenchers who've already committed to rebel against any bill to reintroduce grammars.

Bloody lefties.

ETA And now Nicky Morgan, Cameron's education secretary: ?I believe that an increase in pupil segregation on the basis of academic selection would be at best a distraction from crucial reforms to raise standards and narrow the attainment gap, and at worse risks actively undermining six years of progressive education reform."

Also Neil Carmichael, the Conservative chair of the education select committee. When will this relentless tide of left-wing whinging ever stop?!

Can't resist one more ETA: just heard on PM that the education secretary who holds the all time record for closing grammar schools was...the arch-Trot Margaret Thatcher!

[JohnL]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but that's how it worked in the past - there's a

> vast difference between saying schools can choose

> to become selective grammar schools and "from 2017

> alll schools will be become Grammar Schools or

> Secondary Moderns" as always most opposition to

> change in Education comes from the deeply small

> 'c' conservative Public Sector unions and the

> regressive elements of the left (ie most of it).

My Dad failed 11+ and went to technical college then

first in our family to get a degree (a degree was

something then)

[DaveR]

All the talk is of social mobility which is huge red herring - the evidence for the ability of a particular model of educational provision to boost mobility is thin to non-existent. A very recent study comparing Denmark and the US concluded that the lower inequality in Denmark is due to redistribution, not greater employment mobility.

There's no point in being 'anti-selection'. Life is a whole series of choices, some you make yourself, and some you are on the other end of. As already noted above, selection in education can't be eliminated, it just happens. the real issue is how much it happens by design, within the system, and how much it happens outside the system, by other mechanisms e.g. house prices (the study above also noted that what they call 'neighbourhood sorting' is just as strong in Denmark as in the US).

Grammar schools are probably capable of being part of an effective and fair system, but only if accompanied by high quality and well-resourced alternatives - I've seen some suggestions that opening new grammars will be linked to opening more University Technical Colleges - and with enough flexibility in the HE system so that access to university is not closed off if you don't have 'A' levels. And IMHO a cut off at 11 is too young - the focus should be on getting all pupils to an ambitious (by current standards) level of basic skills in at least maths and English by 13/14, then allowing for different routes.

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but that's how it worked in the past - there's a

> vast difference between saying schools can choose

> to become selective grammar schools and "from 2017

> alll schools will be become Grammar Schools or

> Secondary Moderns" as always most opposition to

> change in Education comes from the deeply small

> 'c' conservative Public Sector unions and the

> regressive elements of the left (ie most of it).

Much as I am agreeing with you pretty regularly these days Quids, I have always had a different view on education. I personally think schools should be run by LEAs, and I think academies and free schools are just a gift to aspirational middle class parents, and/or religious nutters.

And don't get me started on special schools becoming academies.

[jaywalker]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All the talk is of social mobility which is huge

> red herring - the evidence for the ability of a

> particular model of educational provision to boost

> mobility is thin to non-existent. A very recent

> study comparing Denmark and the US concluded that

> the lower inequality in Denmark is due to

> redistribution, not greater employment mobility.

>

Which study is this? Difficult to respond without a reference to the text. There is an enormous literature arguing the contrary of course (the ur-text is Bourdieu's Reproduction.)

I looked up on google and found one recent study comparing Denmark, the US and Canada:

"Some of the chapters in the book, called From Parents to Children, deal with the important influence of early childhood education in determining adult outcomes, reflecting both parental investments and school quality.

This theme reinforces existing research in economics, psychology, and sociology..." They go on to say that there are many other influences (bien sur).

On another "humourous guide to Denmark" web site: "The Jante Law [not a law in our sense but a social norm] is part of all Danish education. There?s no elite education here, no advanced, or gifted and talented programs. If you child is better than the others at a certain subject, his (sic) job is to help the students who are not as good." Is this inaccurate? It certainly (other web sites) seems to be controversial (put the social ahead of the individual) - some find this suffocating so there are calls for more competition and individuality. Perhaps they will adopt grammar schools... One does rather hope not.

[DaveR]

http://ftp.iza.org/dp10000.pdf

There is indeed lots of literature arguing the contrary - and many politicians, on both sides - but they are largely free of any reference to data.

[Seabag]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd be careful about giving too much attention to

> this announcement (vital though education policy

> is). I suspect the government is keen to distract

> us from their lack of post-EU planning.

That and Keith Vaz

[JohnL]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jenny1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'd be careful about giving too much attention

> to

> > this announcement (vital though education

> policy

> > is). I suspect the government is keen to

> distract

> > us from their lack of post-EU planning.

>

> That and Keith Vaz

He's Labour (cough)

[Alan Medic]

I can't be bothered to read this thread to this point. I'd like to ask the question though, why is gold valued so much over water, food and things you need to actually continue living on the planet? I fully expect this post to be ignored.

[rendelharris]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't be bothered to read this thread to this

> point. I'd like to ask the question though, why is

> gold valued so much over water, food and things

> you need to actually continue living on the

> planet? I fully expect this post to be ignored.

Well, because once you move away from a barter economy you need something exchangable to symbolise value and it has to be relatively rare and hard to obtain. If gold was as common as pebbles it would obviously have no value beyond the decorative.

[Alan Medic]

OK but if you had food and water you'd be all right. My fathers Uncle made his money from mining in America. He became rich and was very generous with his money. There is still a building in LA called after him. However it still seems weird to put value on something this is actually useless.

[jaywalker]

but don't we do this all the time?

the imaginary, the symbolic, the real?

[jaywalker]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://ftp.iza.org/dp10000.pdf

>

> There is indeed lots of literature arguing the

> contrary - and many politicians, on both sides -

> but they are largely free of any reference to

> data.

You are saying that Bourdieu's work is 'largely free of any reference to data' ?!???????!

[Alan Medic]

Nothing wrong with 'real'. Trouble is defining it.

[jaywalker]

there is everything wrong with 'real'. it is paraded as a full stop, a termination point to argument. a forensic fantasy.

how could I get a handle on such a thing? and, if I thought I could, what would that imply about the status of the grammatical placeholder 'I' in that conviction? A kind of madness.

the real is the beyond, the unsayable, that which resists, the uncanny. Not the other or the fantasy of the Other. Not the imaginary (interpellated or captated) or what can be expressed (the symbolic). but all that is NOT these things (Lacan).

[Seabag]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seabag Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jenny1 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I'd be careful about giving too much

> attention

> > to

> > > this announcement (vital though education

> > policy

> > > is). I suspect the government is keen to

> > distract

> > > us from their lack of post-EU planning.

> >

> > That and Keith Vaz

>

> He's Labour (cough)

*double cough* I know John

But the Tory's must be loving the distraction