Current Affairs The Labour Party

[WycombeToffee]

But after about 50 years no solution so far has surfaced. So how do you really help the poor to realise their potential. It's ok saying we 'need a better education system', that's what Labour said when they demolished the only way for poor kids to really progress. So what is this better education system, because while we continue to deny that Grammar schools did a great job, we continue to deny poor kids a way out.....

Exactly. My Dad was raised in a poor area of Tuebrook, his parents (my grandparents) were extremely working class manual workers. However, with their encouragement he got into Bluecoats and managed to hugely improve his prospects. He is still always grateful for his education which has allowed him to go to a good uni, get a good job, and work his way up the social ladder. Without Grammars, I very much doubt he would have that opportunity.

Of course, this is just anecdotal one-off evidence, but I bet most Grammar pupils would have similar testimonies. I myself went to one too (as did my two brothers), and I am always grateful that I received a high quality education despite being far from affluent or posh. Selective education just seems like common sense, by catering to ability/strengths.

 

[tsubaki]

So what is your solution to give poor kids an opportunity.....I mean successive governments have had about 50 years to come up with a workable alternative......

Governments fifty years ago did come up with a workable alternative - no tuition fees and the maintenance grant.

It worked for years and years in terms of raising up poor children to the point where they could get jobs where they ended up not poor (I know because I was one of them). Then Major tinkered with it by bringing in the top-up loan, and then Blair broke it by bringing in fees and killing off the maintenance grant.

All we have to show for it is young people burdened with debt, slightly nicer university buildings and Vice-Chancellors on an average of £277,000 a year.

 

[dead_soft]

I keep assuming that Grammar schools were a good thing because you have repeatedly refused to mention any other way for poor kids to progress.......

That doesn't really work. I'm saying that there is no evidence to suggest grammar schools help poor kids progress. Your suggestion is that they must do because something has to.

I think Pete's experience DOES imbue his argument with insight.

Though I do wonder what happens to those who didn't get to grammars, he's telling us what a positive effect going to a grammar had on his life and I have to listen to that

I went to grammar school and it had a fairly negligible effect on my life. What does that change?

 

[peteblue]

That doesn't really work. I'm saying that there is no evidence to suggest grammar schools help poor kids progress. Your suggestion is that they must do because something has to.


I went to grammar school and it had a fairly negligible effect on my life. What does that change?

So you still won't tell us your solution.....says it all.......

 

[orchard]

So you still won't tell us your solution.....says it all.......

Solution to what Pete?

 

[peteblue]

Solution to what Pete?

How to give poor kids greater social and educational mobility.....

 

[orchard]

How to give poor kids greater social and educational mobility.....

Would it though?
Firstly, May, et al, haven't defined what they mean by the term they are using, but I believe it does differ from from the one you and I experienced
somewhat.
Secondly, they were set up to complement the more technical/practical standard schools, which again was reflected later with a clear distinction between 'higher' and 'further' education, which has been eroded.
Thirdly, wouldn't it be more likely, in effect, to serve as a subsidised neo-public schooling system for the squeezed lower-middle classes?
Lastly, as mentioned earlier, surely the cost of gaining a first degree and the fact that they are common place is the main obstacle for the poor?

Personally, I think that perhaps, a better technical schooling system and more respect for those that excel in that department would be better for society than what's been proposed.

 

[peteblue]

Would it though?
Firstly, May, et al, haven't defined what they mean by the term they are using, but I believe it does differ from from the one you and I experienced
somewhat.
Secondly, they were set up to complement the more technical/practical standard schools, which again was reflected later with a clear distinction between 'higher' and 'further' education, which has been eroded.
Thirdly, wouldn't it be more likely, in effect, to serve as a subsidised neo-public schooling system for the squeezed lower-middle classes?
Lastly, as mentioned earlier, surely the cost of gaining a first degree and the fact that they are common place is the main obstacle for the poor?

Personally, I think that perhaps, a better technical schooling system and more respect for those that excel in that department would be better for society than what's been proposed.

I think we have a complete dogs dinner at the moment, that is costing a fortune both in its provision and its receipt. For all the political and educational tinkering and changes we appear to have a worse system than 50 years ago. It is a national disgrace that students have to pay for an education that will benefit the U.K. and any post war social mobility has been completely removed by Labours irrational hatred for Grammar schools. I agree with your comments about technical schooling but fear that education seems more about dumbing down than raising standards......

 

[Number_25]

I think we have a complete dogs dinner at the moment, that is costing a fortune both in its provision and its receipt. For all the political and educational tinkering and changes we appear to have a worse system than 50 years ago. It is a national disgrace that students have to pay for an education that will benefit the U.K. and any post war social mobility has been completely removed by Labours irrational hatred for Grammar schools. I agree with your comments about technical schooling but fear that education seems more about dumbing down than raising standards......

It's mental how you ignore the facts that multiple studies have concluded that selective education simply doesn't work.

 

[orchard]

So stopping dumbing-down standards would be a good start wouldn't it?

State sponsored scholarships at public schools with parental means-testing might be a better solution for you, but the best performing school systems internationally are fully integrated, I believe.

I think we have a complete dogs dinner at the moment, that is costing a fortune both in its provision and its receipt. For all the political and educational tinkering and changes we appear to have a worse system than 50 years ago. It is a national disgrace that students have to pay for an education that will benefit the U.K. and any post war social mobility has been completely removed by Labours irrational hatred for Grammar schools. I agree with your comments about technical schooling but fear that education seems more about dumbing down than raising standards......

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Governments fifty years ago did come up with a workable alternative - no tuition fees and the maintenance grant.

It worked for years and years in terms of raising up poor children to the point where they could get jobs where they ended up not poor (I know because I was one of them). Then Major tinkered with it by bringing in the top-up loan, and then Blair broke it by bringing in fees and killing off the maintenance grant.

All we have to show for it is young people burdened with debt, slightly nicer university buildings and Vice-Chancellors on an average of £277,000 a year.

Social mobility hasn't budged for generations. I'm not sure shifting the burden of education onto the tax payer can really be lauded as that much of a success.

 

[tsubaki]

Social mobility hasn't budged for generations. I'm not sure shifting the burden of education onto the tax payer can really be lauded as that much of a success.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest it was, though - at least based on the experience of those who were born too late to have the grants and who had to pay fees (and much less fees than they have to pay now, so the statistics in ten years time will almost certainly be far worse).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest it was, though - at least based on the experience of those who were born too late to have the grants and who had to pay fees (and much less fees than they have to pay now, so the statistics in ten years time will almost certainly be far worse).

But you could equally bring out stats showing the big increase in the number of poorer kids going to university. The elephant in the room is the parent/s and the huge role they play.

 

[neil999]

on QT last night, len mcluskey said corbyn doesnt have an ego..lol

 

[neil999]

But you could equally bring out stats showing the big increase in the number of poorer kids going to university. The elephant in the room is the parent/s and the huge role they play.

..and then we get onto the pressures there are of being parents in a low income family, oh it never ends