Why do conservatives hate people?

by Original Quill Thu May 22, 2014 2:07 am

First topic message reminder :

Ok, I get how conservatives selfishly grub onto money, and how they have a political philosophy of extreme individualism vs. social justice.

But here in America they can't just leave it at that. They have to go after poor people so vociferously. So it's not about protecting themselves or their money. It's about hating other people.

So why?

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:34 am

No hard evidence on slipping down tables?

Unbelievable!!!!

Maybe you can post up our position in these tables year on year through labours time in govt....????

Just to show how we didn't slip down these tables that we slipped down and is clearly evident by looking at the tables.....

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:15 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No hard evidence on slipping down tables?

Unbelievable!!!!

Maybe you can post up our position in these tables year on year through labours time in govt....????

Just to show how we didn't slip down these tables that we slipped down and is clearly evident by looking at the tables.....

So you don’t believe The Institute of Education University of London and just prattle on regardless?.

And I take it you mean the tables produced by the DofE and briefed to the media and in doing so were later reprimanded by the UK Statistics Authority for doing so. You just bought into it and were as gullible as anyone else who fell for their patter.
You obviously didn’t read the letter which Andrew Dillnot copied out to various sources and I’m now copying it out to you in full so that you don’t miss it this time and that you don’t make the same mistakes again in the future.

Rt. Hon. David Miliband MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA
3 October 2012

PROGRAMME FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ASSESSMENT (PISA) STATISTICS

Thank you for your letter of 3 September. I apologise for the delay in responding. You asked me about comments made by Sir Michael Wilshaw, HM Chief Inspector of Education, in a recent BBC television interview, drawing on educational attainment data in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. I note that PISA data for England and the United Kingdom have been reported in various sources, including the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Department for Education itself. The OECD’s 2009 report for the UK included the following important caveat:

“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

Given these various published caveats and advice, my own view is that those commenting on data in this area should take particular care to avoid making comparisons which could be interpreted as statistically problematic, or otherwise might be misunderstood by the audience.

I was concerned to review the Department for Education’s press release of 7 December 2010 in which headline results for England from the PISA study, alongside relative international rankings, were not accompanied by detailed advice or caveats to help the reader in making comparisons over time, nor were the statistical implications of an increase in the number of reporting countries in later PISA studies noted.iv While I understand that some users of these data would like to make comparisons between the first PISA study in 2000 and the most recent in 2009, the weaknesses relating to the response-rate standard in earlier studies should not be ignored.

The validity of comparisons of national rankings as a result of an increase in the number of countries covered by the PISA study, and the degrees of uncertainty in country scores attributed to sampling and measurement error are also important in this regard. I have also noted the Statistical Release published by the Department on the same date, 7 December 2010, which compares 2009 and 2006 data, but does not attempt comparisons with the earlier years, 2003 and 2000.v

Guidance for officials circulated to departments by the former Cabinet Secretary in 2009 recommended that, when preparing publications containing statistics, the advice of statistical professionals should be sought at the earliest opportunity, and information relating to their quality, reliability and usability should be provided.vi

While the PISA results themselves are not official statistics because they are a result of an international research study by organisations not covered by the scope of the Statistics and Registration Service Act, the Department for Education is a producer of official statistics. Given the 2009 guidance, it would have been helpful had the Department’s December 2010 press release attempted to meet standards similar to those required of departmental statistical publications.

The principles of good statistical communication and statistical literacy emphasise the importance of recognising statistical uncertainty and quality weaknesses in the commentary and advice provided to the user. These uncertainties and weaknesses are not just a technical footnote; they are themselves an important part of the evidence, and affect interpretation and meaning. League tables and the presentation of international rankings can be statistically problematic, and require clear and careful commentary alongside them. I will find a suitable opportunity to explore these matters further with the Department.

I am copying this letter to the Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, to Jil Matheson, the National Statistician, and to the Heads of Profession for Statistics at the Department for Education and Ofsted.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Dilnot CBE

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:19 pm

UK education sixth in global ranking

he UK's education system is ranked sixth best in the developed world, according to a global league table published by education firm Pearson.

The first and second places are taken by Finland and South Korea.

The rankings combine international test results and data such as graduation rates between 2006 and 2010.

Sir Michael Barber, Pearson's chief education adviser, says successful countries give teachers a high status and have a "culture" of education.

International comparisons in education have become increasingly significant - and this latest league table is based upon a series of global test results combined with measures of education systems, such as how many people go on to university.

This composite picture puts the UK in a stronger position than the influential Pisa tests from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - which is also one of the tests included in this ranking.

The weightings for the rankings have been produced for Pearson by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20498356

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:23 pm

1.2 England’s overall performance in the 2007 TIMSS survey Grade 4 science (year 5)
• England’s score, 542, was one of the highest, and is statistically significantly higher than the TIMSS scale average of 500.
•
Only three countries, Singapore (587), Chinese Taipei (557), and Hong Kong (554) had scores that were statistically significantly higher than England’s.

• Seven other countries, Japan (548), the Russian Federation, Latvia, the United States, Hungary, Italy and Kazakhstan (533), performed at a similar level to England.

• England outscored all other countries including Germany, Australia, Austria, Sweden,New Zealand and Scotland.

• England’s high level of performance in 2003 was maintained: the 2007 score of 542 was similar to the 540 achieved in 2003. Performance in 2003 was higher than in the earlier 1995 survey (528)

• In summary, England’s performance in science at year 5 remains amongst the best in the world.

Grade 4 mathematics (year 5)
• England’s score, 541, was again very high, and significantly higher than in 2003.

• Only four countries outscored England: Hong Kong (607), Singapore (599), Chinese
Taipei (576), and Japan (568).

• There is a larger gap between England and the highest scoring Pacific Rim countries in grade 4 mathematics than in grade 4 science.

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

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:More diversions and more 'it was the Tories wot done it' waffle...!!!
You're the bloody chancer here!!!
I never said anything about anyone having a car you doughnut!!!
You'd be lucky to get a bed sit for £81 a week!!!
Let alone anything else for less if that is The average.
What are you talking about you idiot???
We were talking about people being allowed to claim up to £100,000 a year in benefits under labour.
What effect do you think labours mass immigration had on housing costs and rents????
What did labour do about building more social housing...???

You've really lost the plot now because all these point s have already been covered and dealt with. You just didn't like the outcomes.

As for the motor cars?

Tommy Monk wrote:There was unemployed people claiming up to £100,000 per year, there is now a car per household at about £27,000.

See, you did mention motor cars. Laughing

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:16 pm

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:20 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:No it wasn't Sassy.

It was going to be paid by local authorities, but then it was decided that funding should be from central govt.

Either way it would be funded by tax money.

And quill, do you think it is right for people on benefits to be able to claim £100,000 a year...???

This was happening under labour.

And you forget that Torys brought in grammar schools so the brightest from all backgrounds and financial levels could get on and achieve top education and top jobs in The country.

I remember one particular woman who came from very humble beginnings, she was The daughter of a grocery shop owner, went through grammar school system and on to great things....

Have you guessed who it was yet...???

Margaret Thatcher!!!!

Labour have almost completely destroyed the grammar school system, and The rest of our education system has been dumbed down so much by labour that many start work with string of qualifications but still can't read or write properly and don't have a basic understanding of maths.

Their eagerness to make everyone the same just means dragging everyone down to the same level as the lowest common denominator.

They don't really want the poor to be richer, they want the richer to also be poor.

They were happy to give unemployed people up to £100,000 in benefits, And tax all The working and already struggling people more to pay for it.

The Margaret Thatcher you mention practically destroyed grammar schools. Labour didn't take any decisions to close any when they took over in 1997.

Details here....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/education-the-end-of-the-grammar-school-1179844.html

And of course the Tories dumped her for their own good.

You never really commented on this Tommy. Perhaps you missed it.

You've forgot again Tommy.

Tut tut

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:21 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Cap

Doff it then. Smile

by Sponsored content

Why do conservatives hate people?

Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?

Re: Why do conservatives hate people?