Not sure what your point is, THM? The results of the research you quote seems obvious to me (i.e. fit my prejudices) but they don’t provide an argument for filtering off kids at an early age and setting their prospects in stone.

Indeed we should be so much more like you and make factually incorrect statements then run away too embarrassed to either comment or say anything

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/have-we-done-todays-pmq/page/2#post-7243482

You really do have no shame
Interesting you say nothing about THM’s repeated digs to AA though – that actually required a question he did not answer – GIven this why are you shouting at the usual suspects [ as is this is not focusing on individuals] rather than on him Hypocrisy and an inability to handle the data
Chuckles

THM you did not claim it was the educational levels of parents that was the crtical factor you claimed it was

Whats wrong with asking people to invest in their child education? I’m not talking financially, but I am talking emotionally
Nothing lunge, it should be encouraged. It’s THE most important driver.

that quote says the most important factor is
Parental education is generally viewed as the most important predictor of a child’s educational outcomes

You even emboldened it
However it is not what you claimed was most important.
We are not worthy of your genius nor personal digs

Still at least you are lucky to have the colossus Jamby at your back.
With friends like that eh 😆

OK enough big hitting for one day
Have a nice weekend y’all

The argument is simple DrJ. There are more important factors driving educational achievement than the type of school. Of course they fit less well with the cliched class arguments, hence they often get overlooked.

Not sure what your point is, THM?

You wouldnt be the first or the last. What I dont understand is that his points are pretty much the same as mine. Parental education and wealth ade more likely to make kids achieve better and grammar schools make it worse. B
However I think this can and should be reduced to give kids with less well off/less well educated parents more opportunities to do well, he seems to think the either it cant be changed or it shouldnt be changed, although it is admittedly hard to be sure what he is trying to say.

here are more important factors driving educational achievement than the type of schoo

Wow a moment of clarity and I agree but the state can easily control the type of school and not choose types that provide worse out comes for the majority.

Grammar school 0 : Comprehensives 1 (thm – o.g.)

what you haven’t answered is why in an environment where the £ per pupil is likely to be higher as the number of kids on FSM (and therefore attracting the pupil premium) is likely to be condemning them to an “academic blackhole”

I do the same, and I don’t think it selfish – unfair, maybe, and I do what I can to enable others to have the same opportunities. That means recognising that some kids are not as lucky as we’ve been, and don’t deserve to be punished their whole lives for a poor choice of parents.

the pupil premium is designed to counter this, so what is the excuse for poor schooling in deprived area’s when the school clearly gets more cash?

what you haven’t answered is why in an environment where the £ per pupil is likely to be higher as the number of kids on FSM (and therefore attracting the pupil premium) is likely to be condemning them to an “academic blackhole”

Asked

poor schooling in deprived area’s

Answered.

Next question?

the pupil premium is designed to counter this, so what is the excuse for poor schooling in deprived area’s when the school clearly gets more cash?

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair? Why are they getting punished for my success? I thought we were trying to take parental position out of it?

Oh, and don’t assume the good teachers want to go to the schools in the best areas. I know a lot of teachers and many much prefer to work in schools in a lower demographic.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

So why don’t you send them to a school in a poor area, if you think those kids get a better deal? Are you going to do that? No – didn’t than so!

DrJ – you just be very pleased with the result. Congrats and enjoy the warm glow.

Lunge 😉 indeed.

Oh, and don’t assume the good teachers want to go to the schools in the best areas. I know a lot of teachers and many much prefer to work in schools in a lower demographic.

This is not what I see and experience every day in schools wherecI have taught. It is nuch tougher recruiting teachers in schools in deprivedcareas than more affluent areas. I’m sure that lots of data exists to back this up too if you were to go and look for it.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

Because your kids are in a better school with less SEN or emotional problems and most likely a more experienced set of teachers.

So why don’t you send them to a school in a poor area, if you think those kids get a better deal? Are you going to do that? No – didn’t than so!

Firstly, I don’t have kids and have no plans to have any. I am however married to a teacher, have teachers as parents and 2 of my best mates are teachers. So my views are formed from a different perspective to many, don’t make them right mind you, but then it doesn’t make them wrong either.
Second, equal opportunity for all is just that, equal for all irreverent of their family or economic background, you either want that or don’t.

Second, equal opportunity for all is just that, equal for all irreverent of their family or economic background, you either want that or don’t.

Err, yes, I think we all want that (apart from thm, anyway). The question is whether grammar schools deliver it. Instead of batting the question around like a ping pong ball, we could just look at the data:

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/

sorry if it’s already been posted

http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/workingpapers/SEDP-2012-10-Hart-Moro-Roberts.pdf

8. Conclusions
The single most important policy decision under the 1944 Education Act was to provide free secondary education to children from all classes of British society. However, for two main reasons, the implementation of the policy was largely a failure. First, there was a wide chasm in the quality of secondary school provision as between grammar/technical schools and modern schools. The former provided nationally recognised qualifications to one-third of children and led to distinctly improved chances of achieving post-school higher qualifications. The latter offered two-thirds of children virtually no opportunity for within-school qualifications and provided a platform of learning that was not able to support a broad set of further education and training qualifications. Second, selection into one or other of these secondary schools was predicated on performance in a series of IQ tests at the age of 11. Almost certainly the selection process was tilted in favour of children from middle-class family backgrounds. The absence of subsequent movement between grammar/technical schools and modern schools served seriously to exacerbate the results of this selection bias.

The biggest gainers from the free education provision were children from relatively disadvantaged family backgrounds who gained competitive entry into the grammar school system. These constituted only about 15% of all children attending tripartite schools. A further 20% of children were from more advantaged backgrounds and a high proportion of these may well have received a grammar school education in the absence of the new education policy. For the large majority of the remainder who were required to attend secondary modern schools the policy served generally to stifle educational and post-educational development and this in turn was reflected in relatively poor subsequent labour market outcomes.

Thank you Klunk.

It’s this bit that bothers me:

… For the large majority of the remainder who were required to attend secondary modern schools the policy served generally to stifle educational and post-educational development and this in turn was reflected in relatively poor subsequent labour market outcomes.

Indeed as with capitalism in order to have winners* we must have losers and grammar schools help only the winners who are the ones who need the least help.

*To some degree this is inevitable but we dont need to make it worse.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

Lets ignore the implication that anyone who does not get there is not working hard?

So I work hard to eat well and exercise and look after myself and then the NHS spends more money on other unhealthy people than they do on me and these people still have poorer outcomes than me

how is that fair?

FTFY

this thread got me thinking about my middle school, which I was at in the mid 70’s and it was in transition from a secondary modern, IIRC we were it’s first comprehensive intake. They were big on woodwork, metal work, TD, Home Ec/Cooking. There was no foreign language provision in the first year and in retrospect the maths teaching was very poor and the sciences virtually non existent. That said I could have taken passed my O level TD at age 13 🙂

Lets ignore the implication that anyone who does not get there is not working hard?

No such implication, plenty of hard working people don’t succeed and plenty of lazy gits do.

Anyway grammar schools, it’s a priority thing basically, do you prioritise helping the high achievers get higher possibly at detriment to those at a lower level or the do you prioritise getting everyone to a minimum standard possibly at detriment to those who could push on? It’s not about class, wealth or the area you were brought up in, though I accept this can have an impact on where you are on the scale.

And that question is why it’s such a decisive subject.

it’s a priority thing basically

Well, in fact, it’s not. Grammar schools are socially divisive, and educationally ineffective, as the link I posted up there ^^^^ demonstrates.

Anyway grammar schools, it’s a priority thing basically, do you prioritise helping the high achievers get higher possibly at detriment to those at a lower level or the do you prioritise getting everyone to a minimum standard possibly at detriment to those who could push on? It’s not about class, wealth or the area you were brought up in, though I accept this can have an impact on where you are on the scale.

And that question is why it’s such a decisive subject
Agreed and at least we agree on what each system achieves and we just make our priorities based on this

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair? Why are they getting punished for my success? I thought we were trying to take parental position out of it?

what the teaching profession don’t want to admit is that the issue is failing schools in deprived area’s. Secondary Modern schools don’t attract teaching talent where grammar schools exist

This is not what I see and experience every day in schools wherecI have taught. It is nuch tougher recruiting teachers in schools in deprivedcareas than more affluent areas. I’m sure that lots of data exists to back this up too if you were to go and look for it

this is despite having more money thrown at the schools

ergo: the problem isn’t the selective nature of the schools for students, it’s the follow-on selection of teaching staff. So selection of pupils is itself not the problem it is the lack of leadership and teaching talent in the deprived schools despite the extra funding

This probably stems from weak/ CBA governing bodies in these schools

hat the teaching profession don’t want to admit is that the issue is failing schools in deprived area’s.

No thats a big issue but its not necessarily anything to do with Grammar schools as its the same where there are no grammar schools.

o selection of pupils is itself not the problem it is the lack of leadership and teaching talent in the deprived schools despite the extra funding

The extra funding isnt necessarily spent on teachers its often spent on all the other things like getting kids into school in the first place or SEN provision etc. But given the chronic lack of teachers “selection” isnt a luxary we have. We have been looking for a science teacher for over a year now, cant get one and my school is a “nice” comp.
You could argue its lack of leadership but when its a national problem it suggests to me that other factors are involved too.

Extraordinary to imagine that anyone would organise education around the educational standards and needs of the children. 😉

The “research” above highlights the problem as being of implementation not concept. Hardly surprising.

Sorry THM whats your point?

Sorry THM whats your “point”?

fify

While we are at it

What’s….

😉

No point then?

😆

😆

A little homage to your MO there THM 😉

And he stopped talking to me because he claimed I troll

Oh the ironing

Two actually. Very clear AA but the rugby must be too distracting. Just enjoy that instead.

We have been looking for a science teacher for over a year now, cant get one and my school is a “nice” comp.
You could argue its lack of leadership but when its a national problem it suggests to me that other factors are involved too.

Several major problems here…

1. There’s very little (realistic) prospect for talent to transfer into teaching. As a practicing professional scientist, engineer & manager, I have looked into teaching on several occasions. Any mature entrant starts with the green new graduates with little opportunity to regain lost (salary) ground on the basis of your previous non-teaching experience.

2. Unlike other professions, there’s no effective “market” for teachers, based on ability and experience. The market is based on “cheapness” – i.e. an NQT at the bottom of the pay scale is quite employable, whereas an experienced teacher is effectively stifled in their career mobility by this “inverse market”.

3. Head teachers are often dreadful, dreadful managers. All of the negative aspects of public sector management philosophy, but without the oversight.

nlike other professions, there’s no effective “market” for teachers, based on ability and experience. The market is based on “cheapness” – i.e. an NQT at the bottom of the pay scale is quite employable, whereas an experienced teacher is effectively stifled in their career mobility by this “inverse market”.

I dont think this is true, we offered a big dollop extra on the basic wage to the last person. They still turned us down.

STEM teachers perhaps the exception to the rule?

There’s very little (realistic) prospect for talent to transfer into teaching. As a practicing professional scientist, engineer & manager, I have looked into teaching on several occasions. Any mature entrant starts with the green new graduates with little opportunity to regain lost (salary) ground on the basis of your previous non-teaching experience.

is this any different in any other area?

If i train as a doctor i dont stop on top whack because of what I did beforehand

What jobs can I do, with no experience, that i get a premium for ?

2. Unlike other professions, there’s no effective “market” for teachers, based on ability and experience. The market is based on “cheapness” – i.e. an NQT at the bottom of the pay scale is quite employable, whereas an experienced teacher is effectively stifled in their career mobility by this “inverse market”.

I dont think teaching is the only job with agreed pay scales and not all of them have this problem. Secondly the experience is why they get better pay so you would be left with ability. Its very hard to measure.

3. Head teachers are often dreadful, dreadful managers. All of the negative aspects of public sector management philosophy, but without the oversight.

I think this is political point, abut the public sector, that displays bias, unless you have some specific evidence to back this up.

is this any different in any other area?

In some ways yes. The transferable skills brought in by mature candidates are not recognised – exacerbated by “advancement by time served”. A 30-35 yr old transferring from another profession would be significantly junior to a mid 20s teacher, say grad +5yrs. That extra experience is likely to include budget and staff / team management skills that are of considerable value, but that are not valued.

I dont think teaching is the only job with agreed pay scales and not all of them have this problem. Secondly the experience is why they get better pay so you would be left with ability. Its very hard to measure.

But that advancement and increase in pay makes teachers less able to transfer between jobs – they’re just seen as a bigger hit on tight budgets. There appears to me to be little or no incentive to recruit skilled, experienced teachers, so they sit tight and risk “going stale”.

I think this is political point, abut the public sector, that displays bias, unless you have some specific evidence to back this up.

Absolutely no political point. I work closely with public sector clients (and hence have some exposure to various public sector management styles, and a number of close family members teach. As to evidence, well that wouldn’t be for a public forum…

In some ways yes. The transferable skills brought in by mature candidates are not recognised – exacerbated by “advancement by time served”. A 30-35 yr old transferring from another profession would be significantly junior to a mid 20s teacher, say grad +5yrs. That extra experience is likely to include budget and staff / team management skills that are of considerable value, but that are not valued.

Well those budget skills are not needed by a teacher in much the same way if a teacher left to be a manager or run a budget the years of classroom skills are not relevant/useful.
Again what job recognises skills not needed? If I change from being a well paid joiner to a banker would they recognise the skills acquired previously but of no use?

2)Secondly teachers change jobs all the time so I dont agree- I am sure it does happen in some cases but no one is recruiting inexperienced teachers as heads of departments and they all work there way up the pay scale by simply not dying. The staying put is a factor in most jobs tbh as folk tend to be well paid and not move on. Again “staleness” or lack of movement is just not a teaching issue

3)Lucky you are so experienced somewhat unfortunate you cannot mention it- sounds shitty but all i mean is you gave an opinion and presented no evidence though you did make an appeal to your own authority – I am not calling you a liar I am just saying its not convincing as its just your opinion. That does not read any better but I dont mean it to sound as shitty as it reads sorry.

A 30-35 yr old transferring from another profession would be significantly junior to a mid 20s teacher, say grad +5yrs. That extra experience is likely to include budget and staff / team management skills that are of considerable value, but that are not valued

Yeah but could you teach? You dont need these other skills in the first few years. You would have enough on your plate teaching.

There appears to me to be little or no incentive to recruit skilled, experienced teachers

Better results?

they all work there way up the pay scale by simply not dying

Not any more, performance related pay and all that!