Diane Abbott in fine form this morning...

kjgood · May 3, 2017

The original post referred to Ms Abbott, I do apologise for being of such little use.

Hastings gull said:
Whom are you referring to? May or Abbott? To be honest, your post leaves so much out, that it is really of little use.

Hastings gull · May 3, 2017

Moshe Gariani said:
Better effort, but still D- ...

Your reasoned argument about grammar schools was really just factless rhetoric. All of the evidence explaining that money spent on grammar schools (and free schools and probably any other latest Tory educational vanity project...) does less for social mobility than money invested in the mainstream comprehensive system was conveniently ignored.
And, now, I have to take your word for it that Theresa May has "something about her" simply on the basis of her position in the Tory party. When I made a similar remark about Diane Abbott I was joking...

Then it was not clear that you were joking -others are not mind readers and it is up to you to make your point clear. This says it all about your blind faith in left wing rhetoric. How on earth can "evidence" be unearthed comparing the two, when a child would only have gone to one or the other. More children would have done well in mainstream comprehensives these last 40 years, admittedly, as there are so few grammars. But what you cannot gauge is how they would have done at a grammar, had they gone there for 7 years. And you have the nerve to accuse me of factless rhetoric . .And how can you accurately measure the success of social mobility?

I drew on my experience of a grammar school in the 1960s - and teaching experience in comprehensives for 35 years - and with all respect am rather more qualified than you are, and rely on what I have seen over many years at the coal face and it is not rhetoric. Believe me, it is harder for a bright child from a poor home background on a rough estate to succeed at a comprehensive than a grammar.

Hastings gull · May 3, 2017

kjgood said:
The original post referred to Ms Abbott, I do apologise for being of such little use.

Thanks. I was not trying to make a point, or be awkward in any way, but what confused me was the fact that what you were responding to a quote that was underneath. Please elaborate on why you would not want to meet DA again - personal experience always adds to a debate.

Berty23 · May 3, 2017

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
Fair point, of course you need society to make you wealthy, or some would all them customers. If there wasn't a society then there would be no wealth, so I except that was a poorly choose sentence.

But the point still remains, why should any part of people's wealth be given to society when they die?

People who earn enough to become wealthy, already have paid large amount of tax, so will have contributed to society, so why should they have more tax deducted from them because they die.

I take this point to a certain extent but I do think inheritance tax should be higher (and yes I would lose out when my folks die). If you have money it is easy to make money. The skill comes from making it from nothing (which you say you have so fair play) but if wealthy keep the money then this just hammers home the difference between haves and have nots.

For example, my old man has three houses. If we got hit by inheritance tax and had to get rid of them all and take some of the money but lose some then this would free up three houses for the property market. On one of them he did naff all. He bought it for 187 and it is now worth 350k. His rent is 1350 a month and mortgage about 500 quid a month. So in 10 years he has received over 100k in rent (once mortgage paid) and capital gains of 160k. So over quarter of a million. Obviously tax and costs come out but he did that by virtue of having money to buy a house and nothing else. I wouldn't begrudge losing some of that.

The issue comes with the headline makers who play the benefit system for all it is worth. They do my head in as much rich folk doing the same.

Brighton Mod · May 3, 2017

Hastings gull said:
Then it was not clear that you were joking -others are not mind readers and it is up to you to make your point clear. This says it all about your blind faith in left wing rhetoric. How on earth can "evidence" be unearthed comparing the two, when a child would only have gone to one or the other. More children would have done well in mainstream comprehensives these last 40 years, admittedly, as there are so few grammars. But what you cannot gauge is how they would have done at a grammar, had they gone there for 7 years. And you have the nerve to accuse me of factless rhetoric . .And how can you accurately measure the success of social mobility?

I drew on my experience of a grammar school in the 1960s - and teaching experience in comprehensives for 35 years - and with all respect am rather more qualified than you are, and rely on what I have seen over many years at the coal face and it is not rhetoric. Believe me, it is harder for a bright child from a poor home background on a rough estate to succeed at a comprehensive than a grammar.

Brought up in Hollingdean in a council flat, both grandfathers soldiers, father an airman and boxer, mother worked in town. A council house boy, passed my 11+ and went to Varndean Grammar along with a number of mates from my estate. Was a soldier, am a businessman now, property owner, charity benefactor, school governor and father. Although I thought elements of my education were poor, it did me no harm and did not distance myself from my mates at Dorothy Stringer. The left wing rhetoric is actually anti social mobility, they have followed this for years without change. I am comfortable in my life, support the same team for nearly 50 years and am still a council house hoy at heart, but with an achievement 50 fold of my parents. Corbyn and the Hippocrate Abbot are fighting the fight of 50 years ago. What's needed in education today is a relevant and contemporary curriculum.

Hastings gull · May 3, 2017

Brighton Mod said:
Brought up in Hollingdean in a council flat, both grandfathers soldiers, father an airman and boxer, mother worked in town. A council house boy, passed my 11+ and went to Varndean Grammar along with a number of mates from my estate. Was a soldier, am a businessman now, property owner, charity benefactor, school governor and father. Although I thought elements of my education were poor, it did me no harm and did not distance myself from my mates at Dorothy Stringer. The left wing rhetoric is actually anti social mobility, they have followed this for years without change. I am comfortable in my life, support the same team for nearly 50 years and am still a council house hoy at heart, but with an achievement 50 fold of my parents. Corbyn and the Hippocrate Abbot are fighting the fight of 50 years ago. What's needed in education today is a relevant and contemporary curriculum.

Thanks for that. There are countless examples of what you are saying. Whilst I did not grow up on a council estate, my upbringing was in quite humble circumstances - what the PM would say was a family just managing -and the grammar school education gave me the skills and qualifications to go on and teach. Would a comprehensive have done the same? Possibly, but I don't know, but I do know that the distractions may well have made it harder.

Bold Seagull · May 3, 2017

Hastings gull said:
I drew on my experience of a grammar school in the 1960s - and teaching experience in comprehensives for 35 years - and with all respect am rather more qualified than you are, and rely on what I have seen over many years at the coal face and it is not rhetoric. Believe me, it is harder for a bright child from a poor home background on a rough estate to succeed at a comprehensive than a grammar.

BUT this is the main point. The grammar school policy accepts that some schools are not as good. So instead of making all schools of a high standard so that you wouldn't need to ask that question, the grammar school policy is a get out clause that you only need to make select schools excellent and select the best kids at 11 to go there. The rest probably wouldn't have done as well anyway.

21st Century - not the 1960s. Can we not as a society make every state secondary school an excellent centre of education and in turn the community they serve? Your question of whether a bright kid from a poor background should be answered for you – they go to a state school of the highest possible standards, we strive to make every child have a school of the highest possible standards - we do not fall back on some schools being better than others because not every kid is bright.

11 years old is no age to be deciding whether a kid goes to a better school than another kid because their results on a test were a bit better.

In a nutshell it is a policy to reduce investment in education. Make select schools excellent for the bright kids and you don't have to worry so much about the others. It caters for the few and not the many.

Brighton Mod · May 3, 2017

Bold Seagull said:
BUT this is the main point. The grammar school policy accepts that some schools are not as good. So instead of making all schools of a high standard so that you wouldn't need to ask that question, the grammar school policy is a get out clause that you only need to make select schools excellent and select the best kids at 11 to go there. The rest probably wouldn't have done as well anyway.

21st Century - not the 1960s. Can we not as a society make every state secondary school an excellent centre of education and in turn the community they serve? Your question of whether a bright kid from a poor background should be answered for you – they go to a state school of the highest possible standards, we strive to make every child have a school of the highest possible standards - we do not fall back on some schools being better than others because not every kid is bright.

11 years old is no age to be deciding whether a kid goes to a better school than another kid because their results on a test were a bit better.

In a nutshell it is a policy to reduce investment in education. Make select schools excellent for the bright kids and you don't have to worry so much about the others. It caters for the few and not the many.

Is what your stating exactly contradictory to what happens in modern day football and its policy of selecting those as young as 8 or 9. Is not the case that those at 18 or 19 must sit an additional examination to get into Oxford or Cambridge, meaning that selection will pick out only the brightest and hopefully the best.

I served with many officers in the Army who had been to Oxford, Cambridge, Rugby, Harrow, Eton and Welbeck who were no more intelligent than I, but suffered the same privations as everyone in the troop. We accepted our position, made the best of life and found that selection on the battlefield was the most defining of all.Education starts at home, my family never claimed a penny in benefit, I was smacked as a child and when my dad asked me to make a cup of tea after a hard days work I didn't consider it child abuse!

How many children read at home, how many children leave school being unable to read or write correctly and how many children expect to be given opportunities rather than creating them. I want all schools to be of a high standard, but as a past school governor I can confirm that I saw parents with no greater objective in life than to see their children as collaterall in gaining more benefits, failing to discipline their children, upsetting the classroom and dragging the schools performance levels down, what would happen to out brightest if they were dragged down also.

I don't like education as a political football, but equalising everything is not the way forward.

neilbard · May 3, 2017

Biscuit said:
Imagine her as Home Secretary... Doesn't bear thinking about.

Imagine her as your Secretary...ffs! :facepalm:

Frankie · May 3, 2017

Sometimes the wrong people have all the power .

neilbard · May 3, 2017

Hastings gull said:
I drew on my experience of a grammar school in the 1960s - and teaching experience in comprehensives for 35 years - and with all respect am rather more qualified than you are, and rely on what I have seen over many years at the coal face and it is not rhetoric. Believe me, it is harder for a bright child from a poor home background on a rough estate to succeed at a comprehensive than a grammar.

I have to disagree with you, my wife attended a comprehensive school in the 70's she now runs her own Law firm and she came from a poor background. :shrug:

Bold Seagull · May 3, 2017

Brighton Mod said:
How many children read at home, how many children leave school being unable to read or write correctly and how many children expect to be given opportunities rather than creating them. I want all schools to be of a high standard, but as a past school governor I can confirm that I saw parents with no greater objective in life than to see their children as collaterall in gaining more benefits, failing to discipline their children, upsetting the classroom and dragging the schools performance levels down, what would happen to out brightest if they were dragged down also.

I don't like education as a political football, but equalising everything is not the way forward.

So you are writing off kids because of their parents!? Wow, I can't even begin to comprehend your thinking behind that. Some of our most vulnerable children come from hideous backgrounds, neglect that isn't even worth thinking about, and yet in your eyes those kids don't deserve an equal education because their parents don't give a shit? What are they, collateral damage for having crap parents!?

Sir Michael Wilshaw who I thought was a Tory stooge at the head of Ofsted, has condemned the policy of grammar schools. Plenty of pieces he has written since he left is post as Chief Inspector of HM schools.

What you find, and locally is proof of this, is that attainment drags pupils up, not down. Hove Park and Blatchington Mill suffered for years of the reputation of one being poor the other the 'former grammar'. Now, both schools are recognised for high achievement, recent inspections show them as good with outstanding areas. Progress for all pupils is good and improving. First choice applications for both schools are now reaching equal numbers. They share best practice, work together on continuity of learning, shared experience and resources.

What would it do to turn Blatchington Mill back to a Grammar and Hove Park is lessor comprehensive. It would split the community, there wouldn't be enough space at Blatchington Mill for all the 'bright' kids in Hove, so many would have to slum it with your benefits claimants in Hove Park - whose standards would drop given you are not spreading the intake between the schools. It would be a massive backward step.

Both schools as with Varndean and Stringer are achieving, maintaining high standards and giving the same opportunities for all. It is the way forward, it really is.

Brighton Mod · May 3, 2017

Bold Seagull said:
So you are writing off kids because of their parents!? Wow, I can't even begin to comprehend your thinking behind that. Some of our most vulnerable children come from hideous backgrounds, neglect that isn't even worth thinking about, and yet in your eyes those kids don't deserve an equal education because their parents don't give a shit? What are they, collateral damage for having crap parents!?

Sir Michael Wilshaw who I thought was a Tory stooge at the head of Ofsted, has condemned the policy of grammar schools. Plenty of pieces he has written since he left is post as Chief Inspector of HM schools.

What you find, and locally is proof of this, is that attainment drags pupils up, not down. Hove Park and Blatchington Mill suffered for years of the reputation of one being poor the other the 'former grammar'. Now, both schools are recognised for high achievement, recent inspections show them as good with outstanding areas. Progress for all pupils is good and improving. First choice applications for both schools are now reaching equal numbers. They share best practice, work together on continuity of learning, shared experience and resources.

What would it do to turn Blatchington Mill back to a Grammar and Hove Park is lessor comprehensive. It would split the community, there wouldn't be enough space at Blatchington Mill for all the 'bright' kids in Hove, so many would have to slum it with your benefits claimants in Hove Park - whose standards would drop given you are not spreading the intake between the schools. It would be a massive backward step.

Both schools as with Varndean and Stringer are achieving, maintaining high standards and giving the same opportunities for all. It is the way forward, it really is.

Writing off the kids because of their parents, not at all, these children get a disproportionate amount of money spent on them as they are 'statemented' and require the services of a teaching assistant in class. But the level of statementing is increasing and costing more money. If your parents are drug addicts its difficult for the child to get the attention and care that they need as all the parents need is money for drugs, the stories go on and the cover up goes on, its real politik and stands to reason that those who have a dreadful home existence have their life chances deprived by their parents.

Regarding Dorthy Stringer and Varndean Grammar, not the current Varndean you are measuring against, Stringer was always seen as a good school back then and subsequent to us taking our O'levels many Stringer students came to Varndean Sixth Form. Make no error, I'm all for changing education, but placing the brightest alongside those who havn't achieved where the under achievers will get more money, classroom and teacher time spent on them is not the way to drive standards up.

Bold Seagull · May 3, 2017

Brighton Mod said:
Writing off the kids because of their parents, not at all, these children get a disproportionate amount of money spent on them as they are 'statemented' and require the services of a teaching assistant in class. But the level of statementing is increasing and costing more money. If your parents are drug addicts its difficult for the child to get the attention and care that they need as all the parents need is money for drugs, the stories go on and the cover up goes on, its real politik and stands to reason that those who have a dreadful home existence have their life chances deprived by their parents.

Regarding Dorthy Stringer and Varndean Grammar, not the current Varndean you are measuring against, Stringer was always seen as a good school back then and subsequent to us taking our O'levels many Stringer students came to Varndean Sixth Form. Make no error, I'm all for changing education, but placing the brightest alongside those who havn't achieved where the under achievers will get more money, classroom and teacher time spent on them is not the way to drive standards up.

Firstly, funding won't change for those kids so that is spent. Of course most secondary schools 'stream' their classes so the brightest learn with the brightest. The key factor though, as Hove Park has actually demonstrated, is that if you make achievement 'cool' if you make a criteria of success for all, then a culture of a school changes. A kid starting a year on an F grade but makes above expectation progress for the year to a D+ has achieved inline with a pupil starting progressing from a C to an A.

And above all that, it is nonsensical to determine a child's ability at 11 and select their school on that basis. Having a cold on the day of a test could determine which school a kid ends up in. It really should be an historic relic of a system confined to the archives.

Mellor 3 Ward 4 · May 3, 2017

Brighton Mod said:
What's needed in education today is a relevant and contemporary curriculum.

Spot on.

Far too much emphasis on academic subjects for all, and not enough on vocational subjects for those who chose a different path.

Buzzer · May 3, 2017

mikeyjh said:
What a load of genuine tripe! Have a read through again, think about what principles mean and how you would define one breaking them. I don't have the time. One thing for sure though, if you think there is any senior politician out there right now more principled than Corbyn, you're deluded. It's precisely what opens him up for criticism but you cannot cope with a positive about him can you, too comprehend he may have a positive attribute is too sophisticated for your binary position.

Bemoans people for not giving reasons for why they don't think Corbyn is competent or trustworthy. Given numerous examples why people think Corbyn is untrustworthy. Dismisses all examples without so much as a single rebuttal and then claims that other people are unsophisticated and blindly partisan.

You need to take a look at your own inbuilt prejudices, matey.

Hastings gull · May 3, 2017

neilbard said:
I have to disagree with you, my wife attended a comprehensive school in the 70's she now runs her own Law firm and she came from a poor background.

My friend, that is fine. Of course it is quite possible to fully succeed at a local comp and good on your wife. What you don't know is what she might have achieved had she gone to a grammar. I was talking in general terms and am convinced that for bright children, an atmosphere that is academic is a better alternative.

Hastings gull · May 3, 2017

Bold Seagull said:
Firstly, funding won't change for those kids so that is spent. Of course most secondary schools 'stream' their classes so the brightest learn with the brightest. The key factor though, as Hove Park has actually demonstrated, is that if you make achievement 'cool' if you make a criteria of success for all, then a culture of a school changes. A kid starting a year on an F grade but makes above expectation progress for the year to a D+ has achieved inline with a pupil starting progressing from a C to an A.

And above all that, it is nonsensical to determine a child's ability at 11 and select their school on that basis. Having a cold on the day of a test could determine which school a kid ends up in. It really should be an historic relic of a system confined to the archives.

Yes, I would agree with your first para entirely. I do think you are being slightly selective, as these two schools do have relatively good intakes, and I am sure that not all areas have such good schools, which would negate your arguments. I am not taking anything away from the staff at both schools, by the way as I am sure that they do a magnificent job.. The 11+ has often been criticised but I do recall that at the time of 13+ there was movement between the schools, but only very limited, so it was largely accurate. Of course one can argue that that is not good enough, but in education children are graded all the time and it won't always be accurate with the best will in the world.

Bold Seagull · May 3, 2017

Hastings gull said:
My friend, that is fine. Of course it is quite possible to fully succeed at a local comp and good on your wife. What you don't know is what she might have achieved had she gone to a grammar. I was talking in general terms and am convinced that for bright children, an atmosphere that is academic is a better alternative.

Because that can't be achieved in a comprehensive!? Its just absolute nonsense. May wants our children to be divided into categories at 10/11. She wants religious schools to have more freedom to only select on faith, allow grammars to select on results, and this is state education for all. Even her own party is rebelling against it, and its the real reason she has called this election, not Brexit. It is an ideology Tory Party modernisers are against, most of whom she dismissed to the backbenches.

While I could post dozens of articles from Sir Micheal Wilshaw, to the Education Policy Institute, the NAHT, all universally and passionately against Grammar Schools, Justine Greening cannot even name a respected educational figure or institution that supports moving to Grammar schools and selection based upon a test at 10 years old.

What really has changed that renders the the 1959 Crowther Report now obsolete - because basically it is returning to a system we knew wasn't serving society properly back in 1959.

Buzzer · May 3, 2017

Bold Seagull said:
Because that can't be achieved in a comprehensive!? Its just absolute nonsense. May wants our children to be divided into categories at 10/11. She wants religious schools to have more freedom to only select on faith, allow grammars to select on results, and this is state education for all. Even her own party is rebelling against it, and its the real reason she has called this election, not Brexit. It is an ideology Tory Party modernisers are against, most of whom she dismissed to the backbenches.

While I could post dozens of articles from Sir Micheal Wilshaw, to the Education Policy Institute, the NAHT, all universally and passionately against Grammar Schools, Justine Greening cannot even name a respected educational figure or institution that supports moving to Grammar schools and selection based upon a test at 10 years old.

What really has changed that renders the the 1959 Crowther Report now obsolete - because basically it is returning to a system we knew wasn't serving society properly back in 1959.

Got to agree. I'm a comprehensive school boy from a poor background and I'm pretty sure that I would not have got much better from having gone to a grammar school. I don't really get this new found evangelism for grammar schools.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Diane Abbott in fine form this morning...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Its All Too Beautiful

Well-known member

strong and stable with me, or...

Its All Too Beautiful

Hedging up

Put him in the curry

Hedging up

strong and stable with me, or...

Its All Too Beautiful

strong and stable with me, or...

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Well-known member

strong and stable with me, or...

Languidly Clinical

Share this page