Jeremy Corbyn

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 167 of 279 < 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 >

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 Oct 16 9.59pm
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch The 3% on free dinners, how does that compare to the national average? Don't know off the top of my head. When you find out let us know.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 11 Oct 16 9.59pm

Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch

The 3% on free dinners, how does that compare to the national average?

Don't know off the top of my head. When you find out let us know.

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 11 Oct 16 10.01pm
Originally posted by nickgusset I thought about home tutoring to earn extra cash. Over 90percent of potential work was for 11+. Obviously being in Kent this figure is a lot higher than elsewhere. The Mrs sorted out my daughter, the website seemed to be mostly student teachers. A good earner for them Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (11 Oct 2016 10.03pm) the dignified don't even enter in the game

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 11 Oct 16 10.01pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

I thought about home tutoring to earn extra cash. Over 90percent of potential work was for 11+. Obviously being in Kent this figure is a lot higher than elsewhere.

The Mrs sorted out my daughter, the website seemed to be mostly student teachers. A good earner for them

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (11 Oct 2016 10.03pm)

the dignified don't even enter in the game

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 11 Oct 16 10.02pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Don't know off the top of my head. When you find out let us know. So quoting 3% is meaningless. Whilst unlikely It could be higher than the national average. That would bugger your argument up. the dignified don't even enter in the game

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 11 Oct 16 10.02pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Don't know off the top of my head. When you find out let us know.

So quoting 3% is meaningless. Whilst unlikely It could be higher than the national average. That would bugger your argument up.

the dignified don't even enter in the game

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 Oct 16 10.14pm
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch So quoting 3% is meaningless. Whilst unlikely It could be higher than the national average. That would bugger your argument up. It's not meaningless when it's a figure used by the government for measuring socio-economic deprivation.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 11 Oct 16 10.14pm

Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch

So quoting 3% is meaningless. Whilst unlikely It could be higher than the national average. That would bugger your argument up.

It's not meaningless when it's a figure used by the government for measuring socio-economic deprivation.

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 11 Oct 16 10.27pm
Originally posted by nickgusset It's not meaningless when it's a figure used by the government for measuring socio-economic deprivation. You used it as a measure to say that Grammars are exclusive. Unless you have something to compare it to then it is meaningless. As someone who had free school dinners, I am not sure that deprivation is the right word. the dignified don't even enter in the game

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 11 Oct 16 10.27pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

It's not meaningless when it's a figure used by the government for measuring socio-economic deprivation.

You used it as a measure to say that Grammars are exclusive. Unless you have something to compare it to then it is meaningless.

As someone who had free school dinners, I am not sure that deprivation is the right word.

the dignified don't even enter in the game

We are goin up! Coulsdon 11 Oct 16 10.52pm
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch So quoting 3% is meaningless. Whilst unlikely It could be higher than the national average. That would bugger your argument up. It's about 15%. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

We are goin up!

Coulsdon 11 Oct 16 10.52pm

Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch

So quoting 3% is meaningless. Whilst unlikely It could be higher than the national average. That would bugger your argument up.

It's about 15%.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 11 Oct 16 11.46pm
Originally posted by nickgusset After over ten years you've finally got something right. Well done. Go and print yerself a celebratory mug. Hit a nerve did I? Pro USA & Israel

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 11 Oct 16 11.46pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

After over ten years you've finally got something right. Well done. Go and print yerself a celebratory mug.

Hit a nerve did I?

Pro USA & Israel

chris123 hove actually 12 Oct 16 6.27am
Originally posted by nickgusset It's not meaningless when it's a figure used by the government for measuring socio-economic deprivation. Well I am very surprised that Buckinghamshire is socio-economically deprived.

chris123

hove actually 12 Oct 16 6.27am

Originally posted by nickgusset

It's not meaningless when it's a figure used by the government for measuring socio-economic deprivation.

Well I am very surprised that Buckinghamshire is socio-economically deprived.

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 12 Oct 16 8.07am
Originally posted by We are goin up! It's about 15%. Thanks, that is some differential. I have been trying to find out the figures by local authority. i.e if Grammars are in wealthier areas then then it would be reasonable to assume that the % would be lower. As Chris123 has said, a county like Buckinghamshire is likely to have little deprivation the dignified don't even enter in the game

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 12 Oct 16 8.07am

Originally posted by We are goin up!

It's about 15%.

Thanks, that is some differential. I have been trying to find out the figures by local authority. i.e if Grammars are in wealthier areas then then it would be reasonable to assume that the % would be lower.

As Chris123 has said, a county like Buckinghamshire is likely to have little deprivation

the dignified don't even enter in the game

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 8.22am
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch Thanks, that is some differential. I have been trying to find out the figures by local authority. i.e if Grammars are in wealthier areas then then it would be reasonable to assume that the % would be lower. As Chris123 has said, a county like Buckinghamshire is likely to have little deprivation Details here. [Link] Haven't got time to look as I'm off to work. Will read it later.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 8.22am

Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch

As Chris123 has said, a county like Buckinghamshire is likely to have little deprivation

Details here. [Link]

Haven't got time to look as I'm off to work. Will read it later.

chris123 hove actually 12 Oct 16 8.40am
Originally posted by nickgusset Details here. [Link] Haven't got time to look as I'm off to work. Will read it later. You've not helped your argument - here is the first sentence from your link. 'Buckinghamshire is the least deprived Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the second least deprived county council in England according to the 2015 index of multiple deprivation'.

chris123

hove actually 12 Oct 16 8.40am

Originally posted by nickgusset

Details here. [Link]

Haven't got time to look as I'm off to work. Will read it later.

You've not helped your argument - here is the first sentence from your link.

'Buckinghamshire is the least deprived Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the second least deprived county council in England according to the 2015 index of multiple deprivation'.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 8.58am
Originally posted by chris123 You've not helped your argument - here is the first sentence from your link. 'Buckinghamshire is the least deprived Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the second least deprived county council in England according to the 2015 index of multiple deprivation'. Then look at percentage of fsm in grammar vs comprehensive in Bucks.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 8.58am

Originally posted by chris123

You've not helped your argument - here is the first sentence from your link.

'Buckinghamshire is the least deprived Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the second least deprived county council in England according to the 2015 index of multiple deprivation'.

Then look at percentage of fsm in grammar vs comprehensive in Bucks.

Hoof Hearted 12 Oct 16 9.57am
Hrolf talks the most sense on here. Whatever system you opt for, people will try to exploit it. Tutoring the children for 11+, moving to catchment areas of excellent schools, private education etc. Don't forget also that by publishing league tables you have to have winners and losers, whether that is schools v schools or pupils v pupils some do well and others don't. The world is a competitive place for plants, trees, insects, animals, fish, birds and humans. Natural selection as demonstrated by Darwin means that there will always be winners and losers in life. Stop moaning and join the rat race.

Hoof Hearted 12 Oct 16 9.57am

Hrolf talks the most sense on here.

Whatever system you opt for, people will try to exploit it.

Tutoring the children for 11+, moving to catchment areas of excellent schools, private education etc.

Don't forget also that by publishing league tables you have to have winners and losers, whether that is schools v schools or pupils v pupils some do well and others don't.

The world is a competitive place for plants, trees, insects, animals, fish, birds and humans.

Natural selection as demonstrated by Darwin means that there will always be winners and losers in life.

Stop moaning and join the rat race.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 10.04am
[Link] A pretty comprehensive (no pun intended) piece of peer reviewed research into the make up of grammar schools compared with comprehensives. The screenshot shows the make demographic of fsm students. Edited by nickgusset (12 Oct 2016 10.06am) Attachment: Screenshot_20161012-095906.png (151.46Kb)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 10.04am

[Link]

A pretty comprehensive (no pun intended) piece of peer reviewed research into the make up of grammar schools compared with comprehensives.

The screenshot shows the make demographic of fsm students.

Edited by nickgusset (12 Oct 2016 10.06am)

Attachment: Screenshot_20161012-095906.png (151.46Kb)

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 10.05am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Hrolf talks the most sense on here. Whatever system you opt for, people will try to exploit it. Tutoring the children for 11+, moving to catchment areas of excellent schools, private education etc. Don't forget also that by publishing league tables you have to have winners and losers, whether that is schools v schools or pupils v pupils some do well and others don't. The world is a competitive place for plants, trees, insects, animals, fish, birds and humans. Natural selection as demonstrated by Darwin means that there will always be winners and losers in life. Stop moaning and join the rat race. You seem to demonstrate here that you don't give a monkeys about those born into lower socio-economic circumstances. Speaks volumes.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 10.05am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

Hrolf talks the most sense on here.

Whatever system you opt for, people will try to exploit it.

Tutoring the children for 11+, moving to catchment areas of excellent schools, private education etc.

Don't forget also that by publishing league tables you have to have winners and losers, whether that is schools v schools or pupils v pupils some do well and others don't.

The world is a competitive place for plants, trees, insects, animals, fish, birds and humans.

Natural selection as demonstrated by Darwin means that there will always be winners and losers in life.

Stop moaning and join the rat race.

You seem to demonstrate here that you don't give a monkeys about those born into lower socio-economic circumstances. Speaks volumes.

chris123 hove actually 12 Oct 16 10.30am
Originally posted by nickgusset Then look at percentage of fsm in grammar vs comprehensive in Bucks. Frankly, if Buckinghamshire - which you quoted as an example of socio-economic deprivation - is in fact the second least deprived county in the country, in terms of income, employment and education - what more evidence do you require before you accept your entire premise in respect of Buckinghamshire is wrong. You just clicked a link without reading, digesting and understanding its content. Not for the first time either.

chris123

hove actually 12 Oct 16 10.30am

Originally posted by nickgusset

Then look at percentage of fsm in grammar vs comprehensive in Bucks.

Frankly, if Buckinghamshire - which you quoted as an example of socio-economic deprivation - is in fact the second least deprived county in the country, in terms of income, employment and education - what more evidence do you require before you accept your entire premise in respect of Buckinghamshire is wrong. You just clicked a link without reading, digesting and understanding its content. Not for the first time either.

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 12 Oct 16 10.34am
Originally posted by chris123 Frankly, if Buckinghamshire - which you quoted as an example of socio-economic deprivation - is in fact the second least deprived county in the country, in terms of income, employment and education - what more evidence do you require before you accept your entire premise in respect of Buckinghamshire is wrong. You just clicked a link without reading, digesting and understanding its content. Not for the first time either. I don't think he did quote it as an example of socio-economic deprivation? He said that the school meals measure is what the government use to measure deprivation? I think anyway. The point is that 3% of grammar school children receive school meals go to grammar schools compared to roughly 13% of the population. What you would need to see is the numbers in Bucks or Kent to do a proper comparison. But all the evidence shows that grammar schools are disproportionately attended by children from well off backgrounds. So while they do allow the occasional outlier from a very poor background to progress terrifically, what they actually do is entrench socio-economic differentials and reduce social mobility. [Link] Quote We do not find a significant positive impact on social mobility. The gap between children on FSM (attaining five A*-C GCSEs, including English and Maths) and all other children is actually wider in selective areas than in non-selective areas – at around 34.1 per cent compared with 27.8 per cent. Our analysis indicates the reason for this is: - grammar schools attract a larger number of high attaining, non-FSM pupils from other areas and so, in selective areas, there is a disproportionately large number of high attaining, non-disadvantaged children. Indeed, pupils travel, on average, twice as far to attend a selective school as a non-selective school. - pupils eligible for Free School Meals in wholly selective areas that don’t attend a grammar schools perform worse than the national average. Although I have no idea how the thread on Jeremy Corbyn now seems to a free-for-all about any policy and any topic! Edited by OknotOK (12 Oct 2016 10.57am) "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 12 Oct 16 10.34am

Originally posted by chris123

I don't think he did quote it as an example of socio-economic deprivation?

He said that the school meals measure is what the government use to measure deprivation? I think anyway.

The point is that 3% of grammar school children receive school meals go to grammar schools compared to roughly 13% of the population. What you would need to see is the numbers in Bucks or Kent to do a proper comparison.

But all the evidence shows that grammar schools are disproportionately attended by children from well off backgrounds. So while they do allow the occasional outlier from a very poor background to progress terrifically, what they actually do is entrench socio-economic differentials and reduce social mobility.

[Link]

Quote
We do not find a significant positive impact on social mobility. The gap between children on FSM (attaining five A*-C GCSEs, including English and Maths) and all other children is actually wider in selective areas than in non-selective areas – at around 34.1 per cent compared with 27.8 per cent. Our analysis indicates the reason for this is:

- grammar schools attract a larger number of high attaining, non-FSM pupils from other areas and so, in selective areas, there is a disproportionately large number of high attaining, non-disadvantaged children. Indeed, pupils travel, on average, twice as far to attend a selective school as a non-selective school.
- pupils eligible for Free School Meals in wholly selective areas that don’t attend a grammar schools perform worse than the national average.

Although I have no idea how the thread on Jeremy Corbyn now seems to a free-for-all about any policy and any topic!

Edited by OknotOK (12 Oct 2016 10.57am)

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 10.52am
Originally posted by chris123 Frankly, if Buckinghamshire - which you quoted as an example of socio-economic deprivation - is in fact the second least deprived county in the country, in terms of income, employment and education - what more evidence do you require before you accept your entire premise in respect of Buckinghamshire is wrong. You just clicked a link without reading, digesting and understanding its content. Not for the first time either. Where did I quote bucks as an example of socio-economic deprivation? Yes there will be areas that have this. What I did do was post a link that showed the socio-economic demographic of Bucks, but I also said I haven't read it as I was off out. You are clinging to this Bucks thing as if it is your proof that because it has lower levels of deprivation it shoots a hole in the not enough kids of deprived backgrounds get into grammar school argument. Like saying smoking isn't bad for you because my uncle sid smoked 60 a day and lived till he was 99.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 10.52am

Originally posted by chris123

Where did I quote bucks as an example of socio-economic deprivation? Yes there will be areas that have this. What I did do was post a link that showed the socio-economic demographic of Bucks, but I also said I haven't read it as I was off out.

You are clinging to this Bucks thing as if it is your proof that because it has lower levels of deprivation it shoots a hole in the not enough kids of deprived backgrounds get into grammar school argument.

Like saying smoking isn't bad for you because my uncle sid smoked 60 a day and lived till he was 99.

chris123 hove actually 12 Oct 16 10.59am
Originally posted by OknotOK I don't think he did quote it as an example of socio-economic deprivation? He said that the school meals measure is what the government use to measure deprivation? I think anyway. The point is that 3% of grammar school children receive school meals go to grammar schools compared to roughly 15% of the population. What you would need to see is the numbers in Bucks or Kent to do a proper comparison. But all the evidence shows that grammar schools are disproportionately attended by children from well off backgrounds. So while they do allow the occasional outlier from a very poor background to progress terrifically, what they actually do is entrench socio-economic differentials and reduce social mobility. [Link] Although I have no idea how the thread on Jeremy Corbyn now seems to a free-for-all about any policy and any topic! Edited by OknotOK (12 Oct 2016 10.52am) Well to quote him 'As I said the number of free school meals kids at grammars is a good indication of how skewed the system is'. And Nick then offered Bucks as an example - which was a surprise to me as expressed up thread - and then it turns out that Bucks is not deprived after all.

chris123

hove actually 12 Oct 16 10.59am

Originally posted by OknotOK

I don't think he did quote it as an example of socio-economic deprivation?

He said that the school meals measure is what the government use to measure deprivation? I think anyway.

The point is that 3% of grammar school children receive school meals go to grammar schools compared to roughly 15% of the population. What you would need to see is the numbers in Bucks or Kent to do a proper comparison.

[Link]

Although I have no idea how the thread on Jeremy Corbyn now seems to a free-for-all about any policy and any topic!

Edited by OknotOK (12 Oct 2016 10.52am)

Well to quote him

'As I said the number of free school meals kids at grammars is a good indication of how skewed the system is'.

And Nick then offered Bucks as an example - which was a surprise to me as expressed up thread - and then it turns out that Bucks is not deprived after all.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 11.10am
I did not 'offer Bucks as an example'. The research was carried out in Bucks. The link to the article mentioned ethnic minority numbers including pakistani kids. But the thrust of the article was that non tutorable tests didn't make a difference to the demographic of those that got into grammar. One group of campaigners, which has been scrutinising the results of 11-plus tests in its fully selective area for the past three years (the 11-plus is still in use in 25% of education authorities) believes the evidence is now clear. While the prime minister, whose education consultation document is published this week, claims a “smarter” test and new wave of non-binary selective schools are possible, the campaigners argue the test is intrinsically unfair and will always benefit children from certain homes, undermining the entire rationale for a change in policy. Local Equal Excellent began investigating the impact of the 11-plus in Buckinghamshire after grammar schools there said they were introducing a new test that was “resistant to coaching”. The provider of the “tutor-proof” test, the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University (CEM), claimed that the new assessment, consisting of literacy, numeracy and non-verbal reasoning tests, would test “natural ability” and counter allegations that selection discriminates against children whose parents can’t afford coaching. With two more years of test data and further evidence from CEM released under the Freedom of Information Act, the group claims the evidence against the test is stronger than ever. It shows a continuing strong bias against children from the most deprived postcodes (measured by the government’s income deprivation affecting children – IDACI). Only weeks after the prime minister announced she would be scrutinising public services for their promotion of racial equality, it also suggests the test is biased against children from certain minority ethnic backgrounds. Edited by nickgusset (12 Oct 2016 11.11am)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 16 11.10am

I did not 'offer Bucks as an example'. The research was carried out in Bucks. The link to the article mentioned ethnic minority numbers including pakistani kids.
But the thrust of the article was that non tutorable tests didn't make a difference to the demographic of those that got into grammar.

One group of campaigners, which has been scrutinising the results of 11-plus tests in its fully selective area for the past three years (the 11-plus is still in use in 25% of education authorities) believes the evidence is now clear.

While the prime minister, whose education consultation document is published this week, claims a “smarter” test and new wave of non-binary selective schools are possible, the campaigners argue the test is intrinsically unfair and will always benefit children from certain homes, undermining the entire rationale for a change in policy.

Local Equal Excellent began investigating the impact of the 11-plus in Buckinghamshire after grammar schools there said they were introducing a new test that was “resistant to coaching”. The provider of the “tutor-proof” test, the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University (CEM), claimed that the new assessment, consisting of literacy, numeracy and non-verbal reasoning tests, would test “natural ability” and counter allegations that selection discriminates against children whose parents can’t afford coaching.

With two more years of test data and further evidence from CEM released under the Freedom of Information Act, the group claims the evidence against the test is stronger than ever. It shows a continuing strong bias against children from the most deprived postcodes (measured by the government’s income deprivation affecting children – IDACI).

Only weeks after the prime minister announced she would be scrutinising public services for their promotion of racial equality, it also suggests the test is biased against children from certain minority ethnic backgrounds.

Edited by nickgusset (12 Oct 2016 11.11am)

Page 167 of 279 < 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Jeremy Corbyn

Site Map