Labour would fast-track working-class and ethnic minority applicants to top of civil service

First topic message reminder :

Hundreds more people from working-class backgrounds and ethnic minorities will be fast-tracked into senior civil service jobs under a Labour government in an attempt to end the white upper-class dominance of Whitehall. Higher diversity targets will be set in Labour's manifesto, the shadow Cabinet Office minister Michael Dugher will announce this week,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-would-fasttrack-workingclass-and-ethnic-minority-applicants-to-top-of-civil-service-9241177.html

That'll end well.

The policy being suggested by Labour is to encourage kids at school from working class and ethnic backgrounds not to let them feel excluded from trying to enter public life.
How it's done is another argument and we need to see what will be in the announcement when it's published.

Nothing to say on the post office thread Ib?

Tommy Monk wrote:Nothing to say on the post office thread Ib?

Best go and have wee look Tommy.

It doesn't get more demeaning than "We don't think you can do it on your own so we lefties will give you a leg up"

Only a lefty cannot see this.

Alright said Fred wrote:It doesn't get more demeaning than "We don't think you can do it on your own so we lefties will give you a leg up"

Only a lefty cannot see this.

Only a RW could come up with something like that when so many of the people at the top end in public life have had a leg up on the back of the old school tie brigade or the efforts of someone else who earned it for them.

You really are a cheerleader for the keep the peasants in their place crowd that are currently enjoying the benefits instead of encouraging young kids at school not to feel excluded and help them aspire to play a part in public office.

Shameful

Lone Wolf wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:Hundreds more people from working-class backgrounds and ethnic minorities will be fast-tracked into senior civil service jobs under a Labour government in an attempt to end the white upper-class dominance of Whitehall.  Higher diversity targets will be set in Labour's manifesto, the shadow Cabinet Office minister Michael Dugher will announce this week,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-would-fasttrack-workingclass-and-ethnic-minority-applicants-to-top-of-civil-service-9241177.html

That'll end well.

  

LAST TIME I looked the so-called "working class" demographic was still in the majority in Britain...

AT well over 60% of your population..


So, Tess' has produced yet another of her usual bulldust headlines on here ?      

How do you work that one out, shitforbrains? In case you don't know, the Independent is a fairly left-leaning paper, so your RW propaganda bullshit for every post I make doesn't work.

Bet you got fast-tracked for your job.    You wouldn't qualify for much on intelligence and open-mindedness that's for sure.

Irn Bru wrote:

Alright said Fred wrote:It doesn't get more demeaning than "We don't think you can do it on your own so we lefties will give you a leg up"

Only a lefty cannot see this.

Only a RW could come up with something like that when so many of the people at the top end in public life have had a leg up on the back of the old school tie brigade or the efforts of someone else who earned it for them.

You really are a cheerleader for the keep the peasants in their place crowd that are currently enjoying the benefits instead of encouraging young kids at school not to feel excluded and help them aspire to play a part in public office.

Shameful

Yes because no public school educated person can possibly have the intelligence or drive to reach the top of anything without massive leg ups - obviously the only reason they are at the top is because others helped them they certainly did not get their off their own efforts.

Lets ignore fact that all other things being equal public schools push children harder and further, introduce and promote competition, and generally turn out a more rounded better finished product.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Alright said Fred wrote:It doesn't get more demeaning than "We don't think you can do it on your own so we lefties will give you a leg up"

Only a lefty cannot see this.

Only a RW could come up with something like that when so many of the people at the top end in public life have had a leg up on the back of the old school tie brigade or the efforts of someone else who earned it for them.

You really are a cheerleader for the keep the peasants in their place crowd that are currently enjoying the benefits instead of encouraging young kids at school not to feel excluded and help them aspire to play a part in public office.

Shameful

Yes because no public school educated person can possibly have the intelligence or drive to reach the top of anything without massive leg ups - obviously the only reason they are at the top is because others helped them they certainly did not get their off their own efforts.

Lets ignore fact that all other things being equal public schools push children harder and further, introduce and promote competition, and generally turn out a more rounded better finished product.

Indeed, but to get to public school for someone from a working class or ethnic background without a leg up is generally very difficult so what's wrong with encouraging kids from these backgrounds by helping those that would aspire to achieve that get there as well instead of leaving them feeling excluded from it.

What exactly is it that you have against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up to get to the standards required to serve in public office?

Are these people actually applying to join the civil service? You can't get a job if you don't apply for it.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes because no public school educated person can possibly have the intelligence or drive to reach the top of anything without massive leg ups - obviously the only reason they are at the top is because others helped them they certainly did not get their off their own efforts.

Lets ignore fact that all other things being equal public schools push children harder and further, introduce and promote competition, and generally turn out a more rounded better finished product.

Indeed, but to get to public school for someone from a working class or ethnic background without a leg up is generally very difficult so what's wrong with encouraging kids from these backgrounds by helping those that would aspire to achieve that get there as well instead of leaving them feeling excluded from it.

What exactly is it that you have against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up to get to the standards required to serve in public office?

Your question should be "What exactly have the Labour Party got against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up.." - they were the ones who abolished grammar schools and effectively shut off poor kids' chances of achieving great things, coupled with their ridiculous belief that competition is evil!

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes because no public school educated person can possibly have the intelligence or drive to reach the top of anything without massive leg ups - obviously the only reason they are at the top is because others helped them they certainly did not get their off their own efforts.

Lets ignore fact that all other things being equal public schools push children harder and further, introduce and promote competition, and generally turn out a more rounded better finished product.

Indeed, but to get to public school for someone from a working class or ethnic background without a leg up is generally very difficult so what's wrong with encouraging kids from these backgrounds by helping those that would aspire to achieve that get there as well instead of leaving them feeling excluded from it.

What exactly is it that you have against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up to get to the standards required to serve in public office?

It used to be that all children got the leg up if they had the ability regardless of their background - it was called grammar school and selection was by ability only.

Then in the interests of all children being equal they got rid of the grammar schools and sent everyone without the money to afford privately continuing with the previous ability selection to comprehensives where lowest denominator wins.

Do you know what it is like to sit through 2 fifty minute lessons teaching the rest of the class a concept it took you 5 minutes to get? Do you know what it is like to want to know the answers to things and continually be told "we haven't got to that bit yet" and then never get to that bit? To want to learn but be denied because nobody else is ready yet? Thousands of working class children experience that every day - and the result is they get bored and give up because it all seems so pointless and end up underachieving and on the scrap heap.

Good post sphinx!

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Indeed, but to get to public school for someone from a working class or ethnic background without a leg up is generally very difficult so what's wrong with encouraging kids from these backgrounds by helping those that would aspire to achieve that get there as well instead of leaving them feeling excluded from it.

What exactly is it that you have against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up to get to the standards required to serve in public office?

It used to be that all children got the leg up if they had the ability regardless of their background - it was called grammar school and selection was by ability only.

Then in the interests of all children being equal they got rid of the grammar schools and sent everyone without the money to afford privately continuing with the previous ability selection to comprehensives where lowest denominator wins.

Do you know what it is like to sit through 2 fifty minute lessons teaching the rest of the class a concept it took you 5 minutes to get?  Do you know what it is like to want to know the answers to things and continually be told "we haven't got to that bit yet" and then never get to that bit?  To want to learn but be denied because nobody else is ready yet?  Thousands of working class children experience that every day - and the result is they get bored and give up because it all seems so pointless and end up underachieving and on the scrap heap.

Perhaps you could post the evidence from the time you are referring to, of the percentage of grammar school children that got to be top Civil Servants?    The grip that Public Schools have on these positions is historic and has never changed.   So if you think different, please post the statistics. I have posted on the previous page the proof of my view.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It used to be that all children got the leg up if they had the ability regardless of their background - it was called grammar school and selection was by ability only.

Then in the interests of all children being equal they got rid of the grammar schools and sent everyone without the money to afford privately continuing with the previous ability selection to comprehensives where lowest denominator wins.

Do you know what it is like to sit through 2 fifty minute lessons teaching the rest of the class a concept it took you 5 minutes to get?  Do you know what it is like to want to know the answers to things and continually be told "we haven't got to that bit yet" and then never get to that bit?  To want to learn but be denied because nobody else is ready yet?  Thousands of working class children experience that every day - and the result is they get bored and give up because it all seems so pointless and end up underachieving and on the scrap heap.

Perhaps you could post the evidence from the time you are referring to, of the percentage of grammar school children that got to be top Civil Servants?    The grip that Public Schools have on these positions is historic and has never changed.   So if you think different, please post the statistics.  I have posted on the previous page the proof of my view.

A - there is more to success in life than the civil service
B - comprehensives give no chance to working class kids
C - special selection of working class kids for the civil service will benefit the tiny number selected and give no benefit to the hundreds of thousands of others
D - selective grammar school education would benefit every child
E - the elephant in the room I posted earlier namely that working class kids who are successful through grammar schools stop being working class and their kids even more so. Their kids are far more likely to be sent to public school and so the civil service.

I have family members who have gone from working class to public school in a single generation - father working class, child in public school. However that needs the parent to be able to make that climb through their own working and that door is now very firmly closed.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes because no public school educated person can possibly have the intelligence or drive to reach the top of anything without massive leg ups - obviously the only reason they are at the top is because others helped them they certainly did not get their off their own efforts.

Lets ignore fact that all other things being equal public schools push children harder and further, introduce and promote competition, and generally turn out a more rounded better finished product.

Indeed, but to get to public school for someone from a working class or ethnic background without a leg up is generally very difficult so what's wrong with encouraging kids from these backgrounds by helping those that would aspire to achieve that get there as well instead of leaving them feeling excluded from it.

What exactly is it that you have against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up to get to the standards required to serve in public office?

It used to be that all children got the leg up if they had the ability regardless of their background - it was called grammar school and selection was by ability only.

Then in the interests of all children being equal they got rid of the grammar schools and sent everyone without the money to afford privately continuing with the previous ability selection to comprehensives where lowest denominator wins.

Do you know what it is like to sit through 2 fifty minute lessons teaching the rest of the class a concept it took you 5 minutes to get?  Do you know what it is like to want to know the answers to things and continually be told "we haven't got to that bit yet" and then never get to that bit?  To want to learn but be denied because nobody else is ready yet?  Thousands of working class children experience that every day - and the result is they get bored and give up because it all seems so pointless and end up underachieving and on the scrap heap.

Well no they didn't all get a leg up as you suggest because there weren't enough Grammar schools around to take in all the kids who demonstrated that they had ability and some primary schools were better than others in tutoring their pupils to attain the levels required to even be considered. It's just nonsense to say that every child had the chance when they didn't.
And spare me the lectures about sitting through classrooms unless you are going to tell me what it was like for you that is. Were you one of the one's that were held back because some kids were 'slower' than you or were you one of the 'slower' kids that held others back?
The last sermon I got from you turned out to be a real cracker when in your role as an unofficial benefit advisor you were trying to convince me that councils funded benefits out of the council tax so on that basis I'm inclined to give your sermons a wide berth but on you go anyway - lets hear about your experiences going through education.

All I'm getting here is negativity about a statement from Labour that they are going to announce a policy that may help working class lids at school to aspire to positions in public life and that they shouldn't feel excluded from that. So, what's wrong with that?

On you go - I'm all ears

That was cracking stuff Irn!!

This is more exciting than all the soaps put together!!..

But I don't watch them anymore.

Tesstacious wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes because no public school educated person can possibly have the intelligence or drive to reach the top of anything without massive leg ups - obviously the only reason they are at the top is because others helped them they certainly did not get their off their own efforts.

Lets ignore fact that all other things being equal public schools push children harder and further, introduce and promote competition, and generally turn out a more rounded better finished product.

Indeed, but to get to public school for someone from a working class or ethnic background without a leg up is generally very difficult so what's wrong with encouraging kids from these backgrounds by helping those that would aspire to achieve that get there as well instead of leaving them feeling excluded from it.

What exactly is it that you have against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up to get to the standards required to serve in public office?

Your question should be "What exactly have the Labour Party got against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up.." - they were the ones who abolished grammar schools and effectively shut off poor kids' chances of achieving great things, coupled with their ridiculous belief that competition is evil!

Well no, Labour didn't abolish all the grammar schools. It was the Tories that got rid of most them and Labour left the local populations to decide whether they wanted to continue with a selective education system.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It used to be that all children got the leg up if they had the ability regardless of their background - it was called grammar school and selection was by ability only.

Then in the interests of all children being equal they got rid of the grammar schools and sent everyone without the money to afford privately continuing with the previous ability selection to comprehensives where lowest denominator wins.

Do you know what it is like to sit through 2 fifty minute lessons teaching the rest of the class a concept it took you 5 minutes to get?  Do you know what it is like to want to know the answers to things and continually be told "we haven't got to that bit yet" and then never get to that bit?  To want to learn but be denied because nobody else is ready yet?  Thousands of working class children experience that every day - and the result is they get bored and give up because it all seems so pointless and end up underachieving and on the scrap heap.

Well no they didn't all get a leg up as you suggest because there weren't enough Grammar schools around to take in all the kids who demonstrated that they had ability and some primary schools were better than others in tutoring their pupils to attain the levels required to even be considered. It's just nonsense to say that every child had the chance when they didn't.
And spare me the lectures about sitting through classrooms unless you are going to tell me what it was like for you that is. Were you one of the one's that were held back because some kids were 'slower' than you or were you one of the 'slower' kids that held others back?
The last sermon I got from you turned out to be a real cracker when in your role as an unofficial benefit advisor you were trying to convince me that councils funded benefits out of the council tax so on that basis I'm inclined to give your sermons a wide berth but on you go anyway - lets hear about your experiences going through education.

All I'm getting here is negativity about a statement from Labour that they are going to announce a policy that may help working class lids at school to aspire to positions in public life and that they shouldn't feel excluded from that. So, what's wrong with that?

On you go - I'm all ears

They have announced a policy that will help a select few hand picked poster stars.

So there were not enough grammar schools - well it still helped more than the current system does and more than the current system combined with a small number of fast tracked in the civil service individuals.

You want to get what I feel on this? You know how I am generally opposed to Labour? You consider me hard right wing? Well if Labour announced they were bringing back selective grammar schools with equal funding for practical technology colleges then I would vote Labour.

Oh and as you asked I was the one held back. I was pushed forward a year at primary school which was the limit of support for the intelligent. I have IQ tested 142. My cousin was identical to me (but a year younger) up till 8/9 years of age only his father had the money to put him into private school - he has a successful career and a lot of money I am in social housing a chronic underachiever quite besides the fibro. I can never truly measure my own worth now because I have no bench mark for effort/results. I have nothing to be proud of. I have never been pushed and never taught how to push myself. I get more satisfaction and pleasure setting myself against the physical than the mental because the physical gives me a sense of achievement I have never experienced from mental work - and that includes 100% marks in exams.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It used to be that all children got the leg up if they had the ability regardless of their background - it was called grammar school and selection was by ability only.

Then in the interests of all children being equal they got rid of the grammar schools and sent everyone without the money to afford privately continuing with the previous ability selection to comprehensives where lowest denominator wins.

Do you know what it is like to sit through 2 fifty minute lessons teaching the rest of the class a concept it took you 5 minutes to get?  Do you know what it is like to want to know the answers to things and continually be told "we haven't got to that bit yet" and then never get to that bit?  To want to learn but be denied because nobody else is ready yet?  Thousands of working class children experience that every day - and the result is they get bored and give up because it all seems so pointless and end up underachieving and on the scrap heap.

Well no they didn't all get a leg up as you suggest because there weren't enough Grammar schools around to take in all the kids who demonstrated that they had ability and some primary schools were better than others in tutoring their pupils to attain the levels required to even be considered. It's just nonsense to say that every child had the chance when they didn't.
And spare me the lectures about sitting through classrooms unless you are going to tell me what it was like for you that is. Were you one of the one's that were held back because some kids were 'slower' than you or were you one of the 'slower' kids that held others back?
The last sermon I got from you turned out to be a real cracker when in your role as an unofficial benefit advisor you were trying to convince me that councils funded benefits out of the council tax so on that basis I'm inclined to give your sermons a wide berth but on you go anyway - lets hear about your experiences going through education.

All I'm getting here is negativity about a statement from Labour that they are going to announce a policy that may help working class lids at school to aspire to positions in public life and that they shouldn't feel excluded from that. So, what's wrong with that?

On you go - I'm all ears

They have announced a policy that will help a select few hand picked poster stars.

So there were not enough grammar schools - well it still helped more than the current system does and more than the current system combined with a small number of fast tracked in the civil service individuals.

You want to get what I feel on this?  You know how I am generally opposed to Labour?  You consider me hard right wing?  Well if Labour announced they were bringing back selective grammar schools with equal funding for practical technology colleges then I would vote Labour.

Oh and as you asked I was the one held back.  I was pushed forward a year at primary school which was the limit of support for the intelligent.  I have IQ tested 142.  My cousin was identical to me (but a year younger) up till 8/9 years of age only his father had the money to put him into private school - he has a successful career and a lot of money I am in social housing a chronic underachiever quite besides the fibro.  I can never truly measure my own worth now because I have no bench mark for effort/results.  I have nothing to be proud of.  I have never been pushed and never taught how to push myself.  I get more satisfaction and pleasure setting myself against the physical than the mental because the physical gives me a sense of achievement I have never experienced from mental work - and that includes 100% marks in exams.

They have not announced the policy yet - that's still to come but you can't wait to see what's involved in it before getting stuck in - there's the negativity for you.

So in effect the education system let you down because you underachieved your true potential? Was that at a grammar school or didn't you make the grade to get there and ended up in a comprehensive school?

See, your quite content that some kids were left behind because there weren't enough grammar schools but what the hell we got a few out of it.

And this super duper IQ that you have didn't do you well enough to figure out that councils don't fund benefits did it?

Spare me the lectures sphinx as if you are expert enough to throw all those questions at me.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They have announced a policy that will help a select few hand picked poster stars.

So there were not enough grammar schools - well it still helped more than the current system does and more than the current system combined with a small number of fast tracked in the civil service individuals.

You want to get what I feel on this?  You know how I am generally opposed to Labour?  You consider me hard right wing?  Well if Labour announced they were bringing back selective grammar schools with equal funding for practical technology colleges then I would vote Labour.

Oh and as you asked I was the one held back.  I was pushed forward a year at primary school which was the limit of support for the intelligent.  I have IQ tested 142.  My cousin was identical to me (but a year younger) up till 8/9 years of age only his father had the money to put him into private school - he has a successful career and a lot of money I am in social housing a chronic underachiever quite besides the fibro.  I can never truly measure my own worth now because I have no bench mark for effort/results.  I have nothing to be proud of.  I have never been pushed and never taught how to push myself.  I get more satisfaction and pleasure setting myself against the physical than the mental because the physical gives me a sense of achievement I have never experienced from mental work - and that includes 100% marks in exams.

They have not announced the policy yet - that's still to come but you can't wait to see what's involved in it before getting stuck in - there's the negativity for you.

So in effect the education system let you down because you underachieved your true potential? Was that at a grammar school or didn't you make the grade to get there and ended up in a comprehensive school?

See, your quite content that some kids were left behind because there weren't enough grammar schools but what the hell we got a few out of it.

And this super duper IQ that you have didn't do you well enough to figure out that councils don't fund benefits did it?

Spare me the lectures sphinx as if you are expert enough to throw all those questions at me.

How old do you think I am?

I did not get the crack at grammar school. I got the "shes producing As and is not too disruptive - just a tendency to read books in class so no effort required".

I am not content with what a few got - and if anyone had the courtesy to ask me rather than assuming they can guess what I would say I would tell them there were some major problems with the grammar school system of before which any future system would need to aggressively address.

My point is however bad that system was it gave more to more than the current system does and more than some headline grabbing fast tracking of a few would give. Our education system is desperate - it is not just me it let down but hundreds of thousands over at least 2 generations. The bright ones are let down. The slightly below average ones are let down. The practical ones are let down. The fact that all of these are let down also lets down the average ones because it gives them false check levels.

You show no interest in the failing of children but seem more interested in trying to make personal digs at me - you have not actually read what I have put. I would not bother on this subject because trust me nobody can rip me harder than I rip myself.

Really? The results don't show that do they?

[PDF]
Education: Historical statistics - Parliament
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04252.pdf‎

In fact, they show the opposite.

Sassy wrote:Really?  The results don't show that do they?  

   [PDF]
   Education: Historical statistics - Parliament
   www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04252.pdf‎

In fact, they show the opposite.

Yeah I will stick to the statistics showing our students dropping in world league tables and the study I linked to earlier - the one set up to prove that selective grammar school education discriminated against those from poor backgrounds which managed to prove the opposite.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:Really?  The results don't show that do they?  

   [PDF]
   Education: Historical statistics - Parliament
   www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04252.pdf‎

In fact, they show the opposite.

Yeah I will stick to the statistics showing our students dropping in world league tables and the study I linked to earlier - the one set up to prove that selective grammar school education discriminated against those from poor backgrounds which managed to prove the opposite.

I have a friend who is an Ofsted Inspector who says he is always amazed at how much better schools have become.   I'm very glad that children aren't taught the way they are in China etc and the stresses put on them, and the way so many commit suicide or have breakdowns.  

What the grammar school system did was teach those that didn't get in that they were failures and write offs from an early age.   I know this because I went to grammar school and watched the stress and despondency of my friends who didn't pass the 11+ and who were sent to Secondary Moderns.    And I also had some who did pass the 11+ but who didn't get a place as Grammar School, because there weren't enough places.   Those that actually got to one were the lucky few.

BTW, you mentioned a report, you didn't put the link on, just looked back, have you got it?

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yeah I will stick to the statistics showing our students dropping in world league tables and the study I linked to earlier - the one set up to prove that selective grammar school education discriminated against those from poor backgrounds which managed to prove the opposite.

I have a friend who is an Ofsted Inspector who says he is always amazed at how much better schools have become.   I'm very glad that children aren't taught the way they are in China etc and the stresses put on them, and the way so many commit suicide or have breakdowns.  

What the grammar school system did was teach those that didn't get in that they were failures and write offs from an early age.   I know this because I went to grammar school and watched the stress and despondency of my friends who didn't pass the 11+ and who were sent to Secondary Moderns.    And I also had some who did pass the 11+ but who didn't get a place as Grammar School, because there weren't enough places.   Those that actually got to one were the lucky few.

BTW, you mentioned a report, you didn't put the link on, just looked back, have you got it?

Yeah I have already given a brief overview of my issues with the old system which included the idea that secondary moderns were less worthy than grammar - but people do tend to skim over the bits where I am not fitting their expectations.

I did not put a link on because it is not free - I was shown it on someone elses computer and they gave me an overview of it - but if you want it http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/18/esr.jcu040.full?sid=efb93f0c-4723-4142-9fe8-31fa167377d3

Well, this is the Abstract of it, which is free:

In the light of past sociological research in education, we analyze socioeconomic inequalities in cognitive competences among students reaching the end of compulsory schooling, in a time and European comparative perspective. Using the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009 data sets, we examine a broad set of institutional parameters that might play a role in the generation of social differentials in cognitive achievement. Analyzing PISA data for 22 European countries is particularly advantageous for pursuing our concerns, as they allow applying multilevel analyses (student; school; country) and assessing the interaction effects between the characteristics of the educational system on the one hand and student’s and school’s socioeconomic backgrounds on the other hand. We find descriptive evidence that institutional parameters that foster freedom in education, such as an early selection with numerous tracks of study, a great significance of public selective schools, as well as of private schools with fees, jointly amplify socioeconomic inequalities in performances between students essentially by magnifying the effect of schools’ social composition on students’ competences. We find ambiguous results concerning the effect of grade retention, which challenge past and current researches showing negative short-term effects of grade retention. Our hypotheses about the equalizing effect of national support measures, such as financial aids for disadvantaged students, are not empirically confirmed.

Yeah - that was the start of their study - that descriptive evidence. The outcome was that by the end selective education reduced the disadvantages of low wealth - so countries like Germany and Romania have far less outcome difference between rich and poor children than the Scandinavian countries and UK. The were expecting the outcome to reproduce the descriptive but it was the opposite.

There are obviously huge differences between the German grammar system and that used in this country in the 1960s - but I have already expressed that the 1960s system had its faults.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They have announced a policy that will help a select few hand picked poster stars.

So there were not enough grammar schools - well it still helped more than the current system does and more than the current system combined with a small number of fast tracked in the civil service individuals.

You want to get what I feel on this?  You know how I am generally opposed to Labour?  You consider me hard right wing?  Well if Labour announced they were bringing back selective grammar schools with equal funding for practical technology colleges then I would vote Labour.

Oh and as you asked I was the one held back.  I was pushed forward a year at primary school which was the limit of support for the intelligent.  I have IQ tested 142.  My cousin was identical to me (but a year younger) up till 8/9 years of age only his father had the money to put him into private school - he has a successful career and a lot of money I am in social housing a chronic underachiever quite besides the fibro.  I can never truly measure my own worth now because I have no bench mark for effort/results.  I have nothing to be proud of.  I have never been pushed and never taught how to push myself.  I get more satisfaction and pleasure setting myself against the physical than the mental because the physical gives me a sense of achievement I have never experienced from mental work - and that includes 100% marks in exams.

They have not announced the policy yet - that's still to come but you can't wait to see what's involved in it before getting stuck in - there's the negativity for you.

So in effect the education system let you down because you underachieved your true potential? Was that at a grammar school or didn't you make the grade to get there and ended up in a comprehensive school?

See, your quite content that some kids were left behind because there weren't enough grammar schools but what the hell we got a few out of it.

And this super duper IQ that you have didn't do you well enough to figure out that councils don't fund benefits did it?

Spare me the lectures sphinx as if you are expert enough to throw all those questions at me.

How old do you think I am?

I did not get the crack at grammar school.  I got the "shes producing As and is not too disruptive - just a tendency to read books in class so no effort required".

I am not content with what a few got - and if anyone had the courtesy to ask me rather than assuming they can guess what I would say I would tell them there were some major problems with the grammar school system of before which any future system would need to aggressively address.

My point is however bad that system was it gave more to more than the current system does and more than some headline grabbing fast tracking of a few would give.  Our education system is desperate - it is not just me it let down but hundreds of thousands over at least 2 generations.  The bright ones are let down.  The slightly below average ones are let down.  The practical ones are let down.  The fact that all of these are let down also lets down the average ones because it gives them false check levels.

You show no interest in the failing of children but seem more interested in trying to make personal digs at me - you have not actually read what I have put.  I would not bother on this subject because trust me nobody can rip me harder than I rip myself.  

Sphinx, I'm not proud of what I posted back at you and when I read it back there are some things that I said that I wish I hadn't but it really pissed me off that you just dismiss a well intentioned policy announcement without knowing too much about what is involved. You also posted stuff at me as if I had never experienced education or understood it to the levels that you did. I went through the education system at a time when grades were not that important within the type of community that I was brought up in because our futures were pretty well all mapped out for us in that we went to work in the coal mines or got an apprenticeship in practically any trade we wanted. Comparing what went on in the past with grammar schools or comprehensives with what happens now should not be the issue here because grades are everything and anything that can be done to give a leg up to kids from working class backgrounds should be encouraged.

You mentioned courtesy - well just dwell on that and stop lecturing someone in the way you tried to lecture me.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:Really?  The results don't show that do they?  

   [PDF]
   Education: Historical statistics - Parliament
   www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04252.pdf‎

In fact, they show the opposite.

Yeah I will stick to the statistics showing our students dropping in world league tables and the study I linked to earlier - the one set up to prove that selective grammar school education discriminated against those from poor backgrounds which managed to prove the opposite.

Students dropping in the world league did not mean that the standards of our education system got worse. It was as a result of new countries entering their results and the OECD issued guidance that comparisons with previous results and the latest ones were not a true measure.

I'll get you the data on that if you wish.

LOL


Old iron does come out with some waffle!


We didn't plumet down the tables by being better. Of course course standards got worse!



But back to OP, I am all in favour of top civil service jobs being open to any British people, and this should be the case already, but I don't believe in any unfair east tracking of anyone as it seeks to actively discriminate against others.

Tommy Monk wrote:LOL


Old iron does come out with some waffle!


We didn't plumet down the tables by being better. Of course course standards got worse!



But back to OP, I am all in favour of top civil service jobs being open to any British people, and this should be the case already, but I don't believe in any unfair east tracking of anyone as it seeks to actively discriminate against others.

...should it not be who is better suited to the job rather than where one hails from Tommy?...

That's what I said isn't it?


I also believe in British jobs for British workers if that's what you're getting at...!



Especially in civil service as I believe national security is also important.

Tommy Monk wrote:That's what I said isn't it?


I also believe in British jobs for British workers if that's what you're getting at...!



Especially in civil service as I believe national security is also important.

But there are foreign nationals working in our security services like our Border security , just as there are in many other countries Tommy....

Some foreign workers here are more trustworthy and reliable than some of our own!

Translators and informants mainly.....

Tommy Monk wrote:LOL


Old iron does come out with some waffle!


We didn't plumet down the tables by being better. Of course course standards got worse!



But back to OP, I am all in favour of top civil service jobs being open to any British people, and this should be the case already, but I don't believe in any unfair east tracking of anyone as it seeks to actively discriminate against others.

What am I going to do with you Tommy? You just swallow all this drivel from Cameron and his bunch of chancers without question.

Statement by Michael Gove June 2012

“It is important to recognise that it is not just grade inflation that is responsible for improvements in our schools. I do believe that our schools have got better, incrementally in some case, quickly in others, over the course of the last 15 years.”

Repeated in the House of Commons as well. And of those 15 years he mentioned 13 of them were under Labour.

And just for good measure here's a letter the from Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot CBE, kicking the governments arse for publishing rubbish about the results of the Pisa rankings and ignoring the caveats they were supposed to observe - just like you are doing.

Extract

“Trend comparisons, which are a feature of the PISA 2009 reporting are not reported here because for the United Kingdom it is only possible to compare 2006 and 2009 data. As the PISA 2000 and PISA 2003 samples for the United Kingdom did not meet the PISA response-rate standards, no trend comparisons are possible for these years.”i

The NFER’s PISA study report for England provided advice on the interpretation of country rankings.ii I have also noted a review published by the Institute for Education which concluded that there were problems with identifying change over time using PISA data for England, that conclusions should not be based on this resource alone, and that other evidence (including the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) to which you refer) contradicts the findings of the PISA study and therefore it may be difficult to treat an apparent decline in secondary school pupils’ performance as “a statistically robust
result”.iii

Full bollocking is here...

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/8/46624007.pdf

Anything else you need help with just give me a shout Tommy.

Cheers

It seems you have a problem with understanding the fullness of what is said, or maybe you just have a habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest, a form of denial which is common in you lefties!



Gove clearly admits 'grade inflation', and the other piece clearly seeks to excuse what it calls 'an apparent decline in secondary school pupils’ performance'.



The dumbing down during labour years was all too apparent, although every year we were routinely told about how much better the results were.



Tesco director: British school leavers 'can't read or write and have attitude problems'

British school leavers have basic problems with literacy and numeracy and have
major “attitude problems”, Tesco executive director Lucy Neville-Rolfe
believes.
The 56 year-old, one of the most powerful and well paid women in British
business, said despite many A Level students and university graduates not
being able to read or write or understand maths, more were achieving better
results.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7411453/Tesco-director-British-school-leavers-cant-read-or-write-and-have-attitude-problems.html


You lefties always want to have it both ways, kids are getting better and better exam results, but increasingly unable to read and write properly and getting worse at maths, while we're also sliding down the international league tables!



You're a bloody joke!

Tommy Monk wrote:It seems you have a problem with understanding the fullness of what is said, or maybe you just have a habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest, a form of denial which is common in you lefties!



Gove clearly admits 'grade inflation', and the other piece clearly seeks to excuse what it calls 'an apparent decline in secondary school pupils’ performance'.



The dumbing down during labour years was all too apparent, although every year we were routinely told about how much better the results were.



Tesco director: British school leavers 'can't read or write and have attitude problems'

British school leavers have basic problems with literacy and numeracy and have
 major “attitude problems”, Tesco executive director Lucy Neville-Rolfe
 believes.
The 56 year-old, one of the most powerful and well paid women in British
 business, said despite many A Level students and university graduates not
 being able to read or write or understand maths, more were achieving better
 results.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7411453/Tesco-director-British-school-leavers-cant-read-or-write-and-have-attitude-problems.html


You lefties always want to have it both ways, kids are getting better and better exam results, but increasingly unable to read and write properly and getting worse at maths, while we're also sliding down the international league tables!



You're a bloody joke!

...Now ....I don't want any tidal waves Tommy, let's just keep the water slightly rippling and that will be splendid.


Please resume...  

Tommy Monk wrote:It seems you have a problem with understanding the fullness of what is said, or maybe you just have a habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest, a form of denial which is common in you lefties!



Gove clearly admits 'grade inflation', and the other piece clearly seeks to excuse what it calls 'an apparent decline in secondary school pupils’ performance'.



The dumbing down during labour years was all too apparent, although every year we were routinely told about how much better the results were.



Tesco director: British school leavers 'can't read or write and have attitude problems'

British school leavers have basic problems with literacy and numeracy and have
 major “attitude problems”, Tesco executive director Lucy Neville-Rolfe
 believes.
The 56 year-old, one of the most powerful and well paid women in British
 business, said despite many A Level students and university graduates not
 being able to read or write or understand maths, more were achieving better
 results.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7411453/Tesco-director-British-school-leavers-cant-read-or-write-and-have-attitude-problems.html


You lefties always want to have it both ways, kids are getting better and better exam results, but increasingly unable to read and write properly and getting worse at maths, while we're also sliding down the international league tables!



You're a bloody joke!

No Tommy, I'm giving you a direct quote from the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, that states quite clearly that education improved over the last 15 years from the time he said it - 2012. So that leaves us with the knowledge that it must have been pretty poor when Labour came to power in 1997. There really is no other explanation for it, is there?

And I hope you read the letter which quite clearly also states that the PISA rankings were not robust, could not be trusted and should not be used as a comparison. That is what you used in your initial claim, isn't it?

Read the part about the Timms report which showed that the UK results were excellent.

Sorry, your wrong about our education system getting worse and the facts back that up.

Double posted -deleted

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It seems you have a problem with understanding the fullness of what is said, or maybe you just have a habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest, a form of denial which is common in you lefties!
Gove clearly admits 'grade inflation', and the other piece clearly seeks to excuse what it calls 'an apparent decline in secondary school pupils’ performance'.
The dumbing down during labour years was all too apparent, although every year we were routinely told about how much better the results were.
Tesco director: British school leavers 'can't read or write and have attitude problems'
British school leavers have basic problems with literacy and numeracy and have
 major “attitude problems”, Tesco executive director Lucy Neville-Rolfe
 believes.
The 56 year-old, one of the most powerful and well paid women in British
 business, said despite many A Level students and university graduates not
 being able to read or write or understand maths, more were achieving better
 results.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7411453/Tesco-director-British-school-leavers-cant-read-or-write-and-have-attitude-problems.html
You lefties always want to have it both ways, kids are getting better and better exam results, but increasingly unable to read and write properly and getting worse at maths, while we're also sliding down the international league tables!
You're a bloody joke!

No Tommy, I'm giving you a direct quote from the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, that states quite clearly that education improved over the last 15 years from the time he said it - 2012. So that leaves us with the knowledge that it must have been pretty poor when Labour came to power in 1997. There really is no other explanation for it, is there?
And I hope you read the letter which quite clearly also states that the PISA rankings were not robust, could not be trusted and should not be used as a comparison. That is what you used in your initial claim, isn't it?
Read the part about the Timms report which showed that the UK results were excellent.
Sorry, your wrong about our education system getting worse and the facts back that up.

Direct quote?
Looks like you are seeing what you want to see again...!
He talks about grade inflation, then he said "...I do believe that our schools have got better..."
Note that it is only what he believes, and that he is only saying that 'schools have got better', not 'education has improved' as you claim as a direct quote.
A big difference!
Schools have got better, re buildings, equipment, facilities etc. But with any politician, the devil is in the detail!
He didn't say that education has improved, or standards, or intelligence, or overall knowledge etc.
And he would have to say that to try to gain some sort of support from the large numbers of otherwise hostile leftie teachers!
Why do you think he is trying to implement so many reforms and has been so critical if he thinks it is all so great as you suggest?
Come on man, you're obviously not an idiot, so just stop being such a partisan leftie and try to think rationally for a change!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It seems you have a problem with understanding the fullness of what is said, or maybe you just have a habit of just seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest, a form of denial which is common in you lefties!
Gove clearly admits 'grade inflation', and the other piece clearly seeks to excuse what it calls 'an apparent decline in secondary school pupils’ performance'.
The dumbing down during labour years was all too apparent, although every year we were routinely told about how much better the results were.
Tesco director: British school leavers 'can't read or write and have attitude problems'
British school leavers have basic problems with literacy and numeracy and have
 major “attitude problems”, Tesco executive director Lucy Neville-Rolfe
 believes.
The 56 year-old, one of the most powerful and well paid women in British
 business, said despite many A Level students and university graduates not
 being able to read or write or understand maths, more were achieving better
 results.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7411453/Tesco-director-British-school-leavers-cant-read-or-write-and-have-attitude-problems.html
You lefties always want to have it both ways, kids are getting better and better exam results, but increasingly unable to read and write properly and getting worse at maths, while we're also sliding down the international league tables!
You're a bloody joke!

No Tommy, I'm giving you a direct quote from the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, that states quite clearly that education improved over the last 15 years from the time he said it - 2012. So that leaves us with the knowledge that it must have been pretty poor when Labour came to power in 1997. There really is no other explanation for it, is there?
And I hope you read the letter which quite clearly also states that the PISA rankings were not robust, could not be trusted and should not be used as a comparison. That is what you used in your initial claim, isn't it?
Read the part about the Timms report which showed that the UK results were excellent.
Sorry, your wrong about our education system getting worse and the facts back that up.

Direct quote?


Looks like you are seeing what you want to see again...!




He talks about grade inflation, then he said "...I do believe that our schools have got better..."



Note that it is only what he believes, and that he is only saying that 'schools have got better', not 'education has improved'

No Tommy, he said despite grade inflation schools got better so you would have to be a bit thick not to see that the got better bit was linked to iimprovement in educational standards. He is the education secretary after all.

Did you read the letter?

You're struggling

See, your getting all mixed up now with double posts and making changes to them.

Right Tommy, I'm off to bed and hopefully you will have calmed down by tomorrow and seen sense and just accept the facts.

Til tomorrow.

Your 'direct quote' as you claimed, was not a direct quote at all, so just more bollocks.


As shown.


What he said and what you want to see are two different things.


He wouldn't be making so many changes and be so critical if he thought everything was so great as you suggest.



And I'm not changing anything, I hit the post button before I'd finished writing, so nothing changed, just added to complete what I wanted to say, then posted.


And I'm not only completely calm, but never happier than when I'm showing up the idiocy of the typical leftie....!

And just to remind everyone what you claimed.....
'..., I'm giving you a direct quote from the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, that states quite clearly that education improved over the last 15 years
What he actually said.....
'...“It is important to recognise that it is not just grade inflation that is responsible for improvements in our schools. I do believe that our schools have got better, incrementally in some case, quickly in others, over the course of the last 15 years.”
LOL!

Irn Bru wrote:Right Tommy, I'm off to bed and hopefully you will have calmed down by tomorrow and seen sense and just accept the facts.

Til tomorrow.

Irn you wouldn't know what to do with a fact except twist it into something unrecognisable.

If you genuinely think education in this country has improved then you are seriously deluded. In all honesty I must say it has been deteriorating much longer than just the period of Labour. Unlike you I am able to admit fault made by the party I generally support. As a school governor for years I was shocked by the liberal lefty shite that given priority over solid education.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Indeed, but to get to public school for someone from a working class or ethnic background without a leg up is generally very difficult so what's wrong with encouraging kids from these backgrounds by helping those that would aspire to achieve that get there as well instead of leaving them feeling excluded from it.

What exactly is it that you have against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up to get to the standards required to serve in public office?

It used to be that all children got the leg up if they had the ability regardless of their background - it was called grammar school and selection was by ability only.

Then in the interests of all children being equal they got rid of the grammar schools and sent everyone without the money to afford privately continuing with the previous ability selection to comprehensives where lowest denominator wins.

Do you know what it is like to sit through 2 fifty minute lessons teaching the rest of the class a concept it took you 5 minutes to get?  Do you know what it is like to want to know the answers to things and continually be told "we haven't got to that bit yet" and then never get to that bit?  To want to learn but be denied because nobody else is ready yet?  Thousands of working class children experience that every day - and the result is they get bored and give up because it all seems so pointless and end up underachieving and on the scrap heap.

100% agree, selective (graded) education is definitely the best, it is more expensive and difficult to manage which is why politicians don't like it (plus stupid parents that cant accept their child didn't get in) Children do not learn at the same pace so allowing classes where it is slowed down or sped up is one of the first step towards maximising the potential of students.

Oh...heads are gonna roll when Irn gets back!! 

Alright said Fred wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Right Tommy, I'm off to bed and hopefully you will have calmed down by tomorrow and seen sense and just accept the facts.

Til tomorrow.

Irn you wouldn't know what to do with a fact except twist it into something unrecognisable.

If you genuinely think education in this country has improved then you are seriously deluded. In all honesty I must say it has been deteriorating much longer than just the period of Labour. Unlike you I am able to admit fault  made by the party I generally support. As a school governor for years I was shocked by the liberal lefty shite that given priority over solid education.

Ah Drinky, welcome and I’m sure Tommy will be glad to see you charge in blindly to give him some moral support because he certainly needs it.
I’m not twisting any facts and if they are indeed being twisted then it must be Michael Gove, The Institute of Fiscal Studies, the Office of National Statistics, the Timms report and even the OECD PISA assessment results that Tommy has using to get himself into a mess over this.. I’ve listed the details below for you to have a look at. Read it and then come back and tell me which facts are being twisted.

Statement by Michael Gove June 2012
“It is important to recognise that it is not just grade inflation that is responsible for improvements in our schools. I do believe that our schools have got better, incrementally in some case, quickly in others, over the course of the last 15 years.”

IFS Election Briefing 2010 12

National school results in England have improved under Labour across all age groups. However, these improvements have not been as fast as the government hoped, with numerous national targets being set and subsequently missed. On average, English school results at ages 9-10 and 13-14 appear to be well above the Western European average for Mathematics and Science (using TIMSS data), but England’s 15 year olds score around the OECD average for both reading and Mathematics (using PISA data).

Timms Report
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/TMO01/TIMSS2007Chapter1.pdf

UK ONS Letter

http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/letter-from-andrew-dilnot-to-rt--hon--david-miliband-mp---03102012.pdf

Factcheck - The verdict

International data rates 15-year-olds in the UK about average among developed countries in reading, maths and science.
But it’s misleading to draw from this that we have fallen behind other countries in recent years as the data is not only incomplete but the sample has increased so it’s not comparing like with like.

------------------------------------
And I’m well aware that the results of education under Labour were not as good as they might have been given the money spent but they certainly didn’t go down. And remember, much of the money spent under Labour had to be used to rebuild and repair our schools that had been left to rot under the Tories when children were being taught in buildings that were being left to crumble and portakabins were being used because of lack of investment in the infrastructure. You’re joining Tommy on here and showing yourself up as a couple of chancers who have no shame in coming out with all this nonsense and completely ignoring all the facts I have given you from reliable and identifiable data,,,,,,,,shame on you both.

veya_victaous wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Indeed, but to get to public school for someone from a working class or ethnic background without a leg up is generally very difficult so what's wrong with encouraging kids from these backgrounds by helping those that would aspire to achieve that get there as well instead of leaving them feeling excluded from it.

What exactly is it that you have against giving young kids with a lot of promise and desire a leg up to get to the standards required to serve in public office?

It used to be that all children got the leg up if they had the ability regardless of their background - it was called grammar school and selection was by ability only.

Then in the interests of all children being equal they got rid of the grammar schools and sent everyone without the money to afford privately continuing with the previous ability selection to comprehensives where lowest denominator wins.

Do you know what it is like to sit through 2 fifty minute lessons teaching the rest of the class a concept it took you 5 minutes to get?  Do you know what it is like to want to know the answers to things and continually be told "we haven't got to that bit yet" and then never get to that bit?  To want to learn but be denied because nobody else is ready yet?  Thousands of working class children experience that every day - and the result is they get bored and give up because it all seems so pointless and end up underachieving and on the scrap heap.

100% agree, selective (graded) education is definitely the best, it is more expensive and difficult to manage which is why politicians don't like it (plus stupid parents that cant accept their child didn't get in) Children do not learn at the same pace so allowing classes where it is slowed down or sped up is one of the first step towards maximising the potential of students.

Which makes you wonder Veya why there appears to be so much criticism ahead of a policy announcement that Labour are planning to do something to pluck out some of the most talented kids from working class and ethnic backgrounds and give them a chance and a bit of a leg up as well

Tommy Monk wrote:And just to remind everyone what you claimed.....
'..., I'm giving you a direct quote from the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, that states quite clearly that education improved over the last 15 years
What he actually said.....
'...“It is important to recognise that it is not just grade inflation that is responsible for improvements in our schools. I do believe that our schools have got better, incrementally in some case, quickly in others, over the course of the last 15 years.”
LOL!

The first paragraph isn't the quote you fool, it's a reference to it and you even quoted it in the second paragraph.

Well done