Theresa May calls snap election in June

Hmack posted: 

...............   checked out your profile ............   and a common interest in photography - until the completely unforgivable ..... a Canon man!   Everyone who knows anything at all about photography knows that Nikon makes all the best cameras

I admit to being far from perfect HMack,  but my choice in camera's is exemplary.    

Hmack posted:

Things were going so well - a common interest in Blues music and a common interest in photography - until the completely unforgivable.

You would just have to be a Canon man! Everyone who knows anything at all about photography knows that Nikon makes all the best cameras

Didn't you know Hmack... both Canon and Nikon were declared dead yesterday because Sony launched their A9 :-)

Oh and yes (on a serious note) Nikon make the best cameras ... shame they aren't very good at marketing (or writing software or specifically mobile apps).  Actually a bit like Naim... :-)

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

Things were going so well - a common interest in Blues music and a common interest in photography - until the completely unforgivable.

You would just have to be a Canon man! Everyone who knows anything at all about photography knows that Nikon makes all the best cameras

Didn't you know Hmack... both Canon and Nikon were declared dead yesterday because Sony launched their A9 :-)

Oh and yes (on a serious note) Nikon make the best cameras ... shame they aren't very good at marketing (or writing software or specifically mobile apps).  Actually a bit like Naim... :-)

Now I admit to owning a Nikon D7200 and a 16-80mm reasonable lens, but only as a back-up to my Leica D-Lux 4 pocket camera.............!

oh ! and somewhere, I still have a Canon EOS 100 and a couple of lenses for use with 35mm film...............

............as you might have gathered by now, photography is not my thing !

Will June come after the end of May ?

Don Atkinson posted:

I predict a landslide victory for the Conservatives followed by a hard Brexit, the return of Grammar Schools and the end of the NHS as we know it.

Of course, in the run up to the election we shall have all manor of politician-speak about a better, more inclusive society for all, more money going into the NHS (to line private care providers' pockets), more money going into education (so that private trust academies can prosper - and so that the Secondary-Moderns can provide the technically competent artisans to replace Polish plumbers) Global free-trade agreements to fuel the economy to pay for these investments.................

I have nearly always voted Conservative, but that was when the far-right were a small, ineffective group of nut-cases, who were out of control but didn't need to be controlled. But now ISTM, there are far too many of them and they need to be controlled. Step up Jeremy, step up Tim, step up...........................oh, forget it !

I think "Hard Brexit" is an objective of the EU bureaucrats who are fixated on making this divorce as difficult as they possibly can in order to dissuade others countries from following the UK out of the EU. The national politicians are (I think) more pragmatic and, hopefully, see the undisputed benefits of allowing free trade. Attaching conditionality to free trade (i.e. free movement etc) is simply a political imperative of the EU and does nothing to benefit anybody - quite the opposite actually.

Once upon a time, grammar schools provided an educational gold standard and access to educational aspiration/opportunity to the poorer parts of society. The current educational system is worse off without grammar schools and education ought not to be the political football that various governments and teacher's unions have made it for the past 40 years. Nowadays, a good education appears to be the privilege of the (relatively) few who can afford private school fees. Grammar schools worked well and the powers-that-be are yet to identify an equivalent replacement.

Wide spread free access to healthcare is an anachronism nowadays. From 1940 to (say) 2000, it worked and was certainly more appropriate in the earlier days and less so as time passed and society became wealthier, fitter etc. All doctor's appointments should be charged. Emergency care should be free, with after-care being subject to some form of means-tested charging. All non-UK citizens should be charged at full+ rate for all medical services/costs. The current system is unworkable financially and is wasting scarce resources. This is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered ...

regards

Genghis Khan

ynwa250505 posted:

Wide spread free access to healthcare is an anachronism nowadays. From 1940 to (say) 2000, it worked and was certainly more appropriate in the earlier days and less so as time passed and society became wealthier, fitter etc. All doctor's appointments should be charged. Emergency care should be free, with after-care being subject to some form of means-tested charging. All non-UK citizens should be charged at full+ rate for all medical services/costs. The current system is unworkable financially and is wasting scarce resources. This is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered ...

regards

Genghis Khan

Thank god for gravity and tall horses.

Dave***t posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Wide spread free access to healthcare is an anachronism nowadays. From 1940 to (say) 2000, it worked and was certainly more appropriate in the earlier days and less so as time passed and society became wealthier, fitter etc. All doctor's appointments should be charged. Emergency care should be free, with after-care being subject to some form of means-tested charging. All non-UK citizens should be charged at full+ rate for all medical services/costs. The current system is unworkable financially and is wasting scarce resources. This is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered ...

regards

Genghis Khan

Thank god for gravity and tall horses.

So long as I land on my head, I'll be fine lol ...

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I predict a landslide victory for the Conservatives followed by a hard Brexit, the return of Grammar Schools and the end of the NHS as we know it.

Of course, in the run up to the election we shall have all manor of politician-speak about a better, more inclusive society for all, more money going into the NHS (to line private care providers' pockets), more money going into education (so that private trust academies can prosper - and so that the Secondary-Moderns can provide the technically competent artisans to replace Polish plumbers) Global free-trade agreements to fuel the economy to pay for these investments.................

I have nearly always voted Conservative, but that was when the far-right were a small, ineffective group of nut-cases, who were out of control but didn't need to be controlled. But now ISTM, there are far too many of them and they need to be controlled. Step up Jeremy, step up Tim, step up...........................oh, forget 

Once upon a time, grammar schools provided an educational gold standard and access to educational aspiration/opportunity to the poorer parts of society. The current educational system is worse off without grammar schools and education ought not to be the political football that various governments and teacher's unions have made it for the past 40 years. Nowadays, a good education appears to be the privilege of the (relatively) few who can afford private school fees. Grammar schools worked well and the powers-that-be are yet to identify an equivalent replacement.

regards

Genghis Khan

Rather than spouting this nonsense you could do some research first.......

https://fullfact.org/education...lity-whats-evidence/

Jonn posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I predict a landslide victory for the Conservatives followed by a hard Brexit, the return of Grammar Schools and the end of the NHS as we know it.

Of course, in the run up to the election we shall have all manor of politician-speak about a better, more inclusive society for all, more money going into the NHS (to line private care providers' pockets), more money going into education (so that private trust academies can prosper - and so that the Secondary-Moderns can provide the technically competent artisans to replace Polish plumbers) Global free-trade agreements to fuel the economy to pay for these investments.................

I have nearly always voted Conservative, but that was when the far-right were a small, ineffective group of nut-cases, who were out of control but didn't need to be controlled. But now ISTM, there are far too many of them and they need to be controlled. Step up Jeremy, step up Tim, step up...........................oh, forget 

Once upon a time, grammar schools provided an educational gold standard and access to educational aspiration/opportunity to the poorer parts of society. The current educational system is worse off without grammar schools and education ought not to be the political football that various governments and teacher's unions have made it for the past 40 years. Nowadays, a good education appears to be the privilege of the (relatively) few who can afford private school fees. Grammar schools worked well and the powers-that-be are yet to identify an equivalent replacement.

regards

Genghis Khan

Rather than spouting this nonsense you could do some research first.......

https://fullfact.org/education...lity-whats-evidence/

So which bit is nonsense? Enlighten me - there's only 4 sentences to consider ...

(and fullfact simply regurgitates other people's opinions - hardly research)

All four sentences.

I'll think you'll find that the link is in fact based on research evidence and not "other people's opinions." 

Perhaps you could supply some evidence to support your opinions?

Jonn posted:

All four sentences.

I'll think you'll find that the link is in fact based on research evidence and not "other people's opinions." 

Perhaps you could supply some evidence to support your opinions?

All four ... I'm damned then ...

My evidence? I'm afraid its all personal - attendance at a grammar school, education of children in state and private schools, employment of graduates and 6th form school leavers in my businesses. The graduates could not (mostly) even spell, much less articulate an argument with any coherency. 6th formers - complete waste of time, (with the odd exception), with expectations of entitlement that far outstripped their capabilities. All of them let down by an educational system that still seeks to treat everybody as though they all have equal abilities. That is nonsense. Grade inflation, multiple choice examinations, examination by course work, universities that aren't worth the name - all contributing to the dumbing down of the system. Fortunately, this can all be avoided by going to a private school. Unfortunately, you can only do so if you can afford it. We need a selective system that encourages high achievers and that is also accessible by the poorer parts of society. The rest of the system simply needs to provide a good general education for the majority of the bell curve. The UK doesn't have either, whereas it once did. Ask Fullfact ... lol

ynwa250505 posted:

Jonn posted:

All four sentences.

I'll think you'll find that the link is in fact based on research evidence and not "other people's opinions." 

Perhaps you could supply some evidence to support your opinions?

All four ... I'm damned then ...

My evidence? I'm afraid its all personal - attendance at a grammar school, education of children in state and private schools, employment of graduates and 6th form school leavers in my businesses. The graduates could not (mostly) even spell, much less articulate an argument with any coherency. 6th formers - complete waste of time, (with the odd exception), with expectations of entitlement that far outstripped their capabilities. All of them let down by an educational system that still seeks to treat everybody as though they all have equal abilities. That is nonsense. Grade inflation, multiple choice examinations, examination by course work, universities that aren't worth the name - all contributing to the dumbing down of the system. Fortunately, this can all be avoided by going to a private school. Unfortunately, you can only do so if you can afford it. We need a selective system that encourages high achievers and that is also accessible by the poorer parts of society. The rest of the system simply needs to provide a good general education for the majority of the bell curve. The UK doesn't have either, whereas it once did. Ask Fullfact ... lol

I'm not sure from what I read of your posts that you are a poster child for grammar schools... :-)

But, the main issue though with your diatribe is the assumption that grammar schools will be accessible to the poorest in society.  The history of grammar schools suggests that all that happens is the already well off just become further well off.

I agree we need to recognise that everyone has differing abilities and inherent talents, but all grammar schools did was keep people in their proper place.  The high achieves amongst the lower in society we're still ignored.  The solution is to improve standards of all schools, reduce class sizes so that the high achievers are noticed and helped and to also invest in training for those non-academic skills which are so lacking.

In other words invest in all schools and treat teacher with the professional respect that (most) of them deserve.

Sorry about the diatribe ... I'm a poster child for them lol

The grammar school that I went to in a depressed (still) Northern town had pupils from every social strata and was definitely accessible to the poorer parts of society - as were all the grammar schools of that era ...

"keep people in their place" - what planet are you on? Grammar schools were one of the most successful engines of social mobility ever created, but we threw them away in pursuit of a lunatic socialist comprehensive education strategy that destroyed educational motivation and aspirational opportunities - why do you think the private education sector boomed from the 70's. It is the current system that keeps people in their place because relatively few people can afford the fees to attend a private school ...

ynwa250505 posted:

"keep people in their place" - what planet are you on? Grammar schools were one of the most successful engines of social mobility ever created, but we threw them away in pursuit of a lunatic socialist comprehensive education strateg ............... 

100%  agree       (to copy/paste & edit)  The grammar school that I went to in an affluent southern town had pupils from every social strata and was definitely accessible to the poorer parts of society - ME      

I assume you disagree with all the point in here ... http://www.localschoolsnetwork...and-the-actual-facts

No, I do agree some of the points,  but not all, & by points I agree that there are indicators & trends,  they are not 'facts'.  

I can't be bothered to look at the article because you can trawl the internet for opposing/supporting points of view all day long just as you can find biblical quotes for whatever purpose. I've set out my point of view - which you are welcome to contest, but don't bother sending me articles/links which you think prove/disprove my views. Have the integrity to argue for yourself ...

I love that phrase "actual facts" lol - I assume this is to distinguish the content from "alternative facts"?

ynwa250505 posted:

I can't be bothered to look at the article because you can trawl the internet for opposing/supporting points of view all day long just as you can find biblical quotes for whatever purpose. I've set out my point of view - which you are welcome to contest, but don't bother sending me articles/links which you think prove/disprove my views. Have the integrity to argue for yourself ...

I love that phrase "actual facts" lol - I assume this is to distinguish the content from "alternative facts"?

In other words you're right and no expert is going to change your mind?

I suppose my point is that yes, the education system is (in parts) failing.  But introducing selective schools will not solve the problems except for a small minority of Middle England.

Eloise posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

I can't be bothered to look at the article because you can trawl the internet for opposing/supporting points of view all day long just as you can find biblical quotes for whatever purpose. I've set out my point of view - which you are welcome to contest, but don't bother sending me articles/links which you think prove/disprove my views. Have the integrity to argue for yourself ...

I love that phrase "actual facts" lol - I assume this is to distinguish the content from "alternative facts"?

In other words you're right and no expert is going to change your mind?

I suppose my point is that yes, the education system is (in parts) failing.  But introducing selective schools will not solve the problems except for a small minority of Middle England.

Luckily, I went to a grammar school so I don't need to consult an oracle to form an opinion ...

It is the state education system that is failing and it is the private education system that is succeeding massively - that is demonstrably obvious ...

Every society/country needs to have an elite - because we don't want our political/industrial/scientific leaders to be as thick as two short planks - that is not in our best interests. We need our leaders to be highly intellectually capable because their roles in our society require it and so our educational system needs to nurture and produce these individuals. It is desirable (imho) that these individuals come from a range of backgrounds, if only in the interests of "fairness" in society. A selective education process is the only way to provide diversity of financial background whilst also providing a suitable educational route for our elites. We know that One Size does not fit all - so the education system must have differences of process/objective so that participants can enter and pass through via the appropriate route. Clearly, selectivity is not only essential - in a properly designed system, it is unavoidable!

The comprehensive approach of recent decades has only served to encourage the expansion of the private sector and driven the emergence of a new breed of "pseudo-grammar schools" which are essentially fee-charging places of private education. This growth in private education, (driven by the failure of state-provided education), has accelerated the worst and most corrosive form of selectivity that exists in education - those who can pay and those who cannot. Selectivity based on educational merit/capability is the holy grail.

Bring back the grammar schools I say ...

I know that you eschew the research evidence as it challenges your prejudices but unfortunately you are wrong in your assumption that "A selective education system is the only way to provide a diversity of financial background...."

The Institute of Fiscal Studies produced a report on Entry to Grammar Schools using Government data and concluded as follows:

"Our key conclusion is that there is a substantial difference in the likelihood of a child who is eligible for free school meals enrolling in a grammar school as compared with a similar child who is not eligible for FSM. This remains true even if we allow for the fact that FSM children have lower levels of prior attainment. In other words, amongst high achievers, those who are eligible for FSM or who live in poorer neighbourhoods are significantly less likely to go to a grammar school."

The final sentence is the most telling as this shows that the current system is not providing equality of access to able children from poorer backgrounds.

Jonn posted:

I know that you eschew the research evidence as it challenges your prejudices but unfortunately you are wrong in your assumption that "A selective education system is the only way to provide a diversity of financial background...."

The Institute of Fiscal Studies produced a report on Entry to Grammar Schools using Government data and concluded as follows:

"Our key conclusion is that there is a substantial difference in the likelihood of a child who is eligible for free school meals enrolling in a grammar school as compared with a similar child who is not eligible for FSM. This remains true even if we allow for the fact that FSM children have lower levels of prior attainment. In other words, amongst high achievers, those who are eligible for FSM or who live in poorer neighbourhoods are significantly less likely to go to a grammar school."

The final sentence is the most telling as this shows that the current system is not providing equality of access to able children from poorer backgrounds.

 

I think that's a reasonable conclusion, Jonn, but doesn't it suggest that the area of deficiency that needs to be addressed is the admissions process? It doesn't suggest that the quality of education provided by grammar schools is questionable.   

The discussion of grammar schools has been interesting to read.

I'm the product of a single parent home, supplementary benefit, and  council house.  In an area where that was all perfectly normal.  I was at school in the 80s & 90s, so the 11+ wasn't a general thing any more, but there was an elective test for entry into grammar schools in the city.  I passed, went to one of them, and ultimately ended up with a Master's degree from a Russel group university, and am now working on a PhD.  I'm not well off (really, the Naim system is a red herring), but that's more because of choices I made than anything else.  Not one-upmanship, just background info.

So from personal experience I feel strongly inclined towards the idea that grammar schools do indeed offer a social ladder to bright kids from poor backgrounds.  And I usually suspect that perceptions of grammar schools are informed on both sides by a terribly out of date vision of what they were like when they were more widespread in the 50s and 60s.

But at the same time, I'm aware that I'm likely to be biased.  And the idea of agreeing with Tories makes me a bit nauseous.  So I feel a bit like a left wing Brexiteer.  By that I mean approaching an issue and finding myself agreeing with my natural opposition's conclusion, but for what feels like very different reasons.  And yes, there were (some) left wing leavers!

Yet in trying to see through the fog of bias and oratory, one thing that strikes me is that there's a paucity of evidence on both sides.  Thanks for the links, Eloise and Jonn.  But reading through them, I couldn't escape the fact that the arguments seemed to draw questionable conclusions from the relevant data, e.g. MDS's point above, or to be hopelessly incomplete or out of date.  For example the mention of the Gurney-Dixon report is useless without lots of further data, not least the figures for O Level attainment for the working class children who didn't go to grammar schools.  Not to mention that it was over 6o years ago.  The one thing that did catch my eye was the last part of the fullfact report, but again, it's incomplete as presented.

It seems even worse on the other side.  Beyond statistically meaningless anecdotal cases such as mine, and possibly rose-tinted rear view mirrors, the principal evidence seems to be 'well it's obvious, isn't it?'.

So the sensible thing to do, it seems to me, is to run a few pilot schemes in very different parts of the country.  Collect as much data as possible while not breathing down people's necks too hard, and then see what's what in today's world with a proper methodological approach.

I can't see that happening because of the egomaniacal short termism of our politics, but would anyone agree that it'd make sense?

I agree a few pilot schemes would be worth while,  provided the outcome was measured & assessed on purely academic results & absolute zero politics.  My fear is some people will do anything to make it fail to comply with their political dogma.    I will own up to being guilty of already convinced grammar schools do work as I've been there,  but I'm happy concede to a pilot scheme. 

I would also add that some kids are being stifled in the comprehensive system & I would be in favour of grammar school scholarships (places) awarded to suitable candidates from comprehensive schools,  yes its selective streaming but anything has to be better than not giving talented kids a chance to reach their own limits.   Again my own kids experience,  a bored to tears comprehensive medium level achiever that with the right direction from individuals went on to a PhD.

Mike-B posted:

I agree a few pilot schemes would be worth while,  provided the outcome was measured & assessed on purely academic results & absolute zero politics.  My fear is some people will do anything to make it fail to comply with their political dogma.    I will own up to being guilty of already convinced grammar schools do work as I've been there,  but I'm happy concede to a pilot scheme. 

I will agree pilot schemes would be ideal, but only if equally funding was given to alternative schemes which attempted to improve standards...

I don't think the issue is so much to do with the quality of education at Grammar Schools which no doubt is very good in most cases. The issue is more to do with the political dogma which promotes selective education as a way of improving the life chances of poor children when all the evidence suggests that it is better off children who benefit the most.

The other strand to the argument for selective education is to denigrate Comprehensive schools for not stretching bright children. Again while there will be exceptions the evidence shows that many students at Comprehensive schools do go to University, get higher degrees, well paid jobs etc. So you don't have to go to a Grammar School (or a Free School or an Independent School for that matter) to get a good education.

What rarely gets mentioned is those children who are coached to pass the 11+ who then struggle at Grammar School and would have been better off at a Comprehensive  School where teaching and learning are geared to their interests and abilities.