The Jeremy Corbyn thread

[Simster]

To say that one move means that your school loses is far too simplistic, as I am sure that you appreciate. It is unlikely that the end result will aid the wealthy, as they will be in private education anyway, would they not? I presume that you prefer a system where all are the same and the wealthy, as you put it, are held back.

One of the two state schools in Redhill is having £450,000 cut from it's budget, the equivalent of 16 teachers. While you continue to argue in favour of whatever changes (cuts) the Conservatives make, how on earth can that be considered reasonable?

Oh and my wife went for a meal out last night with a friend who works for the department responsible for school budgets across Sussex. One of the ideas on the table is a 4 day school week.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

As I understand it, the government is trying to make the finding system fairer, and whilst you conveniently talk of cuts, an equal amount of schools will gain -were there not protests last year from West Sussex schools, who will now gain? If the system is indeed fairer, then given that you want a fair system, should you not be rejoicing? But I suspect that you don't actually want a fair system, just one that suits your political bias. You are right in that children from deprived backgrounds will struggle, which is of course why the government is introducing grammar schools to help bright pupils from such backgrounds, but you don't want that. It is ironic that the taxi will take a disadvantaged child to a grammar school, to which you object, yet claim you are on the side of such pupils. As a teacher, you will no doubt suspect that a grammar school will indeed give said child a better chance in life, but you would prefer to keep said child at the local comp for political reasons of your own.

Your assertion that cutting funding will lead to greater disparity is wild, off the cuff and a throw-away protest line -particularly as headteachers warn that cuts may affect the existence of small A level classes and other "luxuries". As you know full well, the school in a deprived area will have a huge number of PP pupils -and the thousands of pounds generated will rightly go to helping these children, though the level of success due to this financial help is patchy. It is not as if they have been abandoned.

I'm glad that you don't reserve your nonsense just for replying to my posts...

ALL of the available evidence tells us that Grammar Schools disproportionately favour the relatively affluent middle class; ergo, to allocate limited education budget money to Grammar Schools is to pursue a policy that is ineffective in addressing the low level of social mobility in our country.

These facts explain why Grammar Schools are popular with Tory voters.

 

[Hastings gull]

One of the two state schools in Redhill is having £450,000 cut from it's budget, the equivalent of 16 teachers. While you continue to argue in favour of whatever changes (cuts) the Conservatives make, how on earth can that be considered reasonable?

Oh and my wife went for a meal out last night with a friend who works for the department responsible for school budgets across Sussex. One of the ideas on the table is a 4 day school week.

My friend, I am NOT arguing for cuts, just trying to bring some proportion into the matter. No one wants to see education suffer, but after a lifetime in schools myself (had you realised that?) I am wary of figures such as those quoted and that a four-day week might be on the cards. Do you seriously think that will happen? The figure of £450,000 - is this starting tomorrow morning, or what MIGHT happen over a few years? I now attend governor meetings over a few schools, and am fully aware that schools are having to tighten their budgets, and their belts, but do not recognise the type of figure that you quote.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm glad that you don't reserve your nonsense just for replying to my posts...

ALL of the available evidence tells us that Grammar Schools disproportionately favour the relatively affluent middle class; ergo, to allocate limited education budget money to Grammar Schools is to pursue a policy that is ineffective in addressing the low level of social mobility in our country.

These facts explain why Grammar Schools are popular with Tory voters.

There may well be a low-level of social mobility in this country but you cannot put the blame for that at schools' doors -this shows that you do not have a background in education. Any teacher will tell you that with the best will in the world, the school's influence on the child, will be minimal at best compared to that of the home. Ironically, this is what the introduction of grammar schools is trying to address. Given that comprehensives have been the ideological vogue for now 40 years or so, and YOUR assertion that there is little social mobility, might it just not be in the interest of bright children from poorer areas to try something different? No, of course not -that would go against the ideology, wouldn't it! And you say I talk nonsense!

 

[wellquickwoody]

Helping 'brighter' children at the expense of the majority of children. My school's funding is being cut by £200,000. That's the equivalent of 8 teachers. All to fund a system of education that is almost exclusively aimed at and to aid the wealthy.

8 teachers? Really? Best get into the 21st century.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

There may well be a low-level of social mobility in this country but you cannot put the blame for that at schools' doors -this shows that you do not have a background in education. Any teacher will tell you that with the best will in the world, the school's influence on the child, will be minimal at best compared to that of the home. Ironically, this is what the introduction of grammar schools is trying to address. Given that comprehensives have been the ideological vogue for now 40 years or so, and YOUR assertion that there is little social mobility, might it just not be in the interest of bright children from poorer areas to try something different? No, of course not -that would go against the ideology, wouldn't it! And you say I talk nonsense!

A low level of social mobility in this country is not an "assertion" it is a fact. All sorts of statistics from various government departments confirm it. As you say the issue is complex and hard to impact.

You think that spending limited education budget money on expensive new grammar schools, taking resources away from existing schools, is a good idea. This is based on your personal experience in the 1960s and the unarguable benefit to a relatively very small number of children from underprivileged homes.

We will have to agree to differ.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

8 teachers? Really? Best get into the 21st century.

How do you figure?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

As I understand it, the government is trying to make the finding system fairer, and whilst you conveniently talk of cuts, an equal amount of schools will gain -were there not protests last year from West Sussex schools, who will now gain? If the system is indeed fairer, then given that you want a fair system, should you not be rejoicing? But I suspect that you don't actually want a fair system, just one that suits your political bias. You are right in that children from deprived backgrounds will struggle, which is of course why the government is introducing grammar schools to help bright pupils from such backgrounds, but you don't want that. It is ironic that the taxi will take a disadvantaged child to a grammar school, to which you object, yet claim you are on the side of such pupils. As a teacher, you will no doubt suspect that a grammar school will indeed give said child a better chance in life, but you would prefer to keep said child at the local comp for political reasons of your own.

Your assertion that cutting funding will lead to greater disparity is wild, off the cuff and a throw-away protest line -particularly as headteachers warn that cuts may affect the existence of small A level classes and other "luxuries". As you know full well, the school in a deprived area will have a huge number of PP pupils -and the thousands of pounds generated will rightly go to helping these children, though the level of success due to this financial help is patchy. It is not as if they have been abandoned.

What utter nonsense. It's got nothing to do with political bias and if I was the kind of person who would put politics ahead of a child I'd leave the teaching profession. Almost all evidence suggests that Granmar schools dont work at helping social mobility. Poorer children in local authorities that currently operate a grammar school system perform worse than those in non-selective authorities, and are far less likely to score highly at GCSE. Plus studies have also found that grammar schools do not improve the exam results of bright students beyond what they would have achieved at a good comprehensive, while more grammars would widen the attainment gap between rich and poor.

And regarding PP children, of course PP money helps but if you work in education you also knows that money can be spent in a variety of ways from TAs to intervention groups and schools still rely on funding staff and the first wave teaching that makes the real difference to their education. By shifting funding those TAs will likely be the first to go.

 

[Hastings gull]

What utter nonsense. It's got nothing to do with political bias and if I was the kind of person who would put politics ahead of a child I'd leave the teaching profession. Almost all evidence suggests that Granmar schools dont work at helping social mobility. Poorer children in local authorities that currently operate a grammar school system perform worse than those in non-selective authorities, and are far less likely to score highly at GCSE. Plus studies have also found that grammar schools do not improve the exam results of bright students beyond what they would have achieved at a good comprehensive, while more grammars would widen the attainment gap between rich and poor.

And regarding PP children, of course PP money helps but if you work in education you also knows that money can be spent in a variety of ways from TAs to intervention groups and schools still rely on funding staff and the first wave teaching that makes the real difference to their education. By shifting funding those TAs will likely be the first to go.

Sadly, another poster who considers that anything that does not fit the agenda is “utter nonsense”. You will be telling me that you teach British Values next . .
I am old enough to be wary of “studies” that inevitably yield the result that is wanted. Your sentence in bold demonstrates this superbly – how on earth can you compare one result with that which might have been gained at another school, when it is pure conjecture –and of course your assertion is very convenient conjecture! And whatever happens we must not let anyone get ahead, must we, so best to get rid of grammars and keep all the same –and then you state that there is no political bias.

Of course what you state in your final para is true, and PP is not the only source. Like you, I don’t want to see reductions in education expenditure, but whilst your school might lose out, is it not the case that other schools will gain in that the funding will be fairer. Or presumably you think that your school should get more than others - in the interests of fairness.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Sadly, another poster who considers that anything that does not fit the agenda is “utter nonsense”. You will be telling me that you teach British Values next . .
I am old enough to be wary of “studies” that inevitably yield the result that is wanted. Your sentence in bold demonstrates this superbly – how on earth can you compare one result with that which might have been gained at another school, when it is pure conjecture –and of course your assertion is very convenient conjecture! And whatever happens we must not let anyone get ahead, must we, so best to get rid of grammars and keep all the same –and then you state that there is no political bias.

Of course what you state in your final para is true, and PP is not the only source. Like you, I don’t want to see reductions in education expenditure, but whilst your school might lose out, is it not the case that other schools will gain in that the funding will be fairer. Or presumably you think that your school should get more than others - in the interests of fairness.

I consider your notion that I'd put political opinion ahead of the child, nonsense. At least put what I said in context instead of trying to twist my words. It's a bit rich of you to talk of bias but you dismiss studies that would disprove your own view. My school and many others are in critical shape re funding. Yes some schools will benefit, and that's obviously very positive for those schools, however others will be in crisis. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

 

[Hastings gull]

I consider your notion that I'd put political opinion ahead of the child, nonsense. At least put what I said in context instead of trying to twist my words. It's a bit rich of you to talk of bias but you dismiss studies that would disprove your own view. My school and many others are in critical shape re funding. Yes some schools will benefit, and that's obviously very positive for those schools, however others will be in crisis. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

But that is precisely what you were doing - quoting studies giving end results which you favour and so they must be valid. What am I supposed to think when you quote a nonsensical one comparing results that a child got a comprehensive school with that which he/she would have got at a grammar school they never attended. . .would that "study" have been done by an organisation that supports comprehensive schools, just by chance . .
Not sure anyone has said that ignoring a problem will help. Schools say they need more cash, as do MOD, Social care, local Councils, NHS, Police, every charity you can think of etc etc - what about everyone paying say, £50..00 more tax each month, or possibly £100.00? That should do it. Are you happy for that?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

But that is precisely what you were doing - quoting studies giving end results which you favour and so they must be valid. What am I supposed to think when you quote a nonsensical one comparing results that a child got a comprehensive school with that which he/she would have got at a grammar school they never attended. . .would that "study" have been done by an organisation that supports comprehensive schools, just by chance . .
Not sure anyone has said that ignoring a problem will help. Schools say they need more cash, as do MOD, Social care, local Councils, NHS, Police, every charity you can think of etc etc - what about everyone paying say, £50..00 more tax each month, or possibly £100.00? That should do it. Are you happy for that?

I'm curious, is it only a nonsensical 'study' because you disagree with its findings?

 

[Titanic]

Jezza's stance on Brexit and his recent call for unity really gaining traction...

Westminster voting intention (YouGov / 26-27 Mar):

CON: 43% (+2)
LAB: 25% (-)
LDEM: 11% (-)
UKIP: 10% (-2)

 

[Ernest]

Jezza's stance on Brexit and his recent call for unity really gaining traction...

Westminster voting intention (YouGov / 26-27 Mar):

CON: 43% (+2)
LAB: 25% (-)
LDEM: 11% (-)
UKIP: 10% (-2)

It's not good to have such a FIXATION , the TORIES will be WIPED out in 2020 as the British people BLAME them for the chaos the country is in because of them leaving the EU

 

[Simster]

It's not good to have such a FIXATION , the TORIES will be WIPED out in 2020 as the British people BLAME them for the chaos the country is in because of them leaving the EU

Any half electable Labour leader would be a shu-in for 2020. Sadly, that's not what we have and the LibDems simply don't resonate with enough people to be a serious force. We're stuck with the current shower until Corbyn is replaced with a moderate.

 

[Chicken Run]

It's not good to have such a FIXATION , the TORIES will be WIPED out in 2020 as the British people BLAME them for the chaos the country is in because of them leaving the EU

You voted to leave[emoji23]

 

[JC Footy Genius]

LAB: 45% (+20)
CON: 25% (-20)
LDEM: 11% (-)
UKIP: 10% (-)

Interesting poll in today's paper.

 

[Cian]

McCluskey has stated he's willing to throw cash at unions in a different country to keep them striking while the bus company they works for goes insolvent.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/...kers-supported-by-unions-40m-fund-783375.html

That may be a bit of a financial distraction from taking over Labour, if it happens.

 

[Chicken Run]

McCluskey has stated he's willing to throw cash at unions in a different country to keep them striking while the bus company they works for goes insolvent.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/...kers-supported-by-unions-40m-fund-783375.html

That may be a bit of a financial distraction from taking over Labour, if it happens.

I see Unite have returned this knob to the leadership with a massive 12% of members being bothered to vote! Shows what the membership think of their Union!!

 

[Ernest]

I see Unite have returned this knob to the leadership with a massive 12% of members being bothered to vote! Shows what the membership think of their Union!!

Obviously very happy with McCluskey leading them otherwise they would have voted him out