From Precariat to Elite

[turbobloke]

speedy_thrills said:

People like to think they can make good through hard work but if anything it's less likely you'll be able to elevate your standing in life today than at any time since the end of WW2. Still we pretend it's all working fine and this will have no social or economic consequences now or in the future.

I can hear the battle cry now, bring back grammar school social mobility engines!

"If you understand that the debate over schools has been won by those with the best of intentions but not necessarily the best ideas, you are some way to comprehending the British school system."

This, taken from the article below, neatly describes what the left thinks of its educational and wider ideals while also describing the failure they have inevitably brought.

With rates of social mobility stagnant the time is right to admit we got it wrong on grammar schools

The backdrop as social mobility in the UK lags behind other countries after 13 years of Labour

More

[McWigglebum4th]

davepoth said:

The sociologists seem to have been left behind by society here. What we knew as the "working class" isn't the working class any more - it now includes poor saps like me who went to university, got a degree, and work in a low status job in a "contact centre" with hundreds of similar people. Telling people like me we're middle class just because we have pretensions is silly. And as it turns out, embourgeoisement is a word. Wikipedia says so.

Sadly you are viewed as middle class by our coming leaders as you have a job and must be punished

[Twincam16]

elster said:

That is only the short test, the full test is a lot longer.

I took that, but it doesn't assign your class like the BBC version, it just rates your levels of 'capital' against the majority of the population. I got 55% financial, 55% social and 90% cultural, and am still absolutely none the wiser as to what that makes me.

[Twincam16]

turbobloke said:

speedy_thrills said:

People like to think they can make good through hard work but if anything it's less likely you'll be able to elevate your standing in life today than at any time since the end of WW2. Still we pretend it's all working fine and this will have no social or economic consequences now or in the future.

I can hear the battle cry now, bring back grammar school social mobility engines!

"If you understand that the debate over schools has been won by those with the best of intentions but not necessarily the best ideas, you are some way to comprehending the British school system."

This, taken from the article below, neatly describes what the left thinks of its educational and wider ideals while also describing the failure they have inevitably brought.

With rates of social mobility stagnant the time is right to admit we got it wrong on grammar schools

The backdrop as social mobility in the UK lags behind other countries after 13 years of Labour

More

Problem with grammar schools was that they were at the top of a stratified school system, rather than just one of an equally-regarded spectrum of schools focusing on a particular skill area.

Had we built up our technical schools at the same time, as promised, then we wouldn't have had kids with hands-on, mechanical skills derided as unacademic and not as important as the grammar school kids.

If the 11+ had been more of a differentiating exercise, rather than an exam that you either passed or failed at a very young age, then I don't think those middle-class parents would have taken quite so hard against it.

[turbobloke]

Twincam16 said:

turbobloke said:

speedy_thrills said:

People like to think they can make good through hard work but if anything it's less likely you'll be able to elevate your standing in life today than at any time since the end of WW2. Still we pretend it's all working fine and this will have no social or economic consequences now or in the future.

I can hear the battle cry now, bring back grammar school social mobility engines!

"If you understand that the debate over schools has been won by those with the best of intentions but not necessarily the best ideas, you are some way to comprehending the British school system."

This, taken from the article below, neatly describes what the left thinks of its educational and wider ideals while also describing the failure they have inevitably brought.

With rates of social mobility stagnant the time is right to admit we got it wrong on grammar schools

The backdrop as social mobility in the UK lags behind other countries after 13 years of Labour

More

Problem with grammar schools was that they were at the top of a stratified school system, rather than just one of an equally-regarded spectrum of schools focusing on a particular skill area.

Had we built up our technical schools at the same time, as promised, then we wouldn't have had kids with hands-on, mechanical skills derided as unacademic and not as important as the grammar school kids.

If the 11+ had been more of a differentiating exercise, rather than an exam that you either passed or failed at a very young age, then I don't think those middle-class parents would have taken quite so hard against it.

Some of that is curious to say the least. The 11+ was and is precisely a differentiating exercise, selecting pupils in terms of cognitive ability as being more or less suited for an academic education. Being coached has a non-zero but minor impact on test outcomes and grammar schools are in the habit of releasing sample test questions to level the awareness playing field.

At the top of a stratified system - there's nothing wrong with a horses-for-courses stratified system, as you appear to confirm later in the post by supporting a differentiating exercise, which is what the 11+ is. Your phrase 'unacademic and not as important' would seem to reflect your own prejudice rather than reality, the difference is merely in terms of suitability for the more academic education offered in grammar schools.

Language of the emotive hype variety such as describing pupils as 'unacademic' (OK, factual) but then not as important relates to the politicsed activism opposing grammar schools that is now seen as missing the point and contributing to a seized-up social mobility engine.

Finally, activists took against 'it' not parents. Parents like grammar schools.

[turbobloke]

Labour politicians, being deluded as is inevitable, believed their own hype on grammar schools and also believed that parents were of a similar view. They legislated to that effect, expecting activists/parents to lead the charge to close remaining grammar schools - and failed spectacularly, which also is inevitable. This wheeze bit the dust faster than Presclot trying to play croquet after mounting his secretary to warm up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/mar/11/grammarsc...

[Twincam16]

turbobloke said:

Some of that is curious to say the least. The 11+ was and is precisely a differentiating exercise, selecting pupils in terms of cognitive ability as being more or less suited for an academic education. Being coached has a non-zero but minor impact on test outcomes and grammar schools are in the habit of releasing sample test questions to level the awareness playing field.

At the top of a stratified system - there's nothing wrong with a horses-for-courses stratified system, as you appear to confirm later in the post by supporting a differentiating exercise, which is what the 11+ is. Your phrase 'unacademic and not as important' would seem to reflect your own prejudice rather than reality, the difference is merely in terms of suitability for the more academic education offered in grammar schools.

Language of the emotive hype variety such as describing pupils as 'unacademic' (OK, factual) but then not as important relates to the politicsed activism opposing grammar schools that is now seen as missing the point and contributing to a seized-up social mobility engine.

Finally, activists took against 'it' not parents. Parents like grammar schools.

You appear to have confused your opinion with some kind of immobile, monolithic 'truth'. As usual.

[turbobloke]

Twincam16 said:

turbobloke said:

Some of that is curious to say the least. The 11+ was and is precisely a differentiating exercise, selecting pupils in terms of cognitive ability as being more or less suited for an academic education. Being coached has a non-zero but minor impact on test outcomes and grammar schools are in the habit of releasing sample test questions to level the awareness playing field.

At the top of a stratified system - there's nothing wrong with a horses-for-courses stratified system, as you appear to confirm later in the post by supporting a differentiating exercise, which is what the 11+ is. Your phrase 'unacademic and not as important' would seem to reflect your own prejudice rather than reality, the difference is merely in terms of suitability for the more academic education offered in grammar schools.

Language of the emotive hype variety such as describing pupils as 'unacademic' (OK, factual) but then not as important relates to the politicsed activism opposing grammar schools that is now seen as missing the point and contributing to a seized-up social mobility engine.

Finally, activists took against 'it' not parents. Parents like grammar schools.

You appear to have confused your opinion with some kind of immobile, monolithic 'truth'. As usual.

The opinion I hold in relation to social moblity and grammar schools is a considered one with evidence to support it, and like other opinions it could change if the evidence/facts change.

What you've offered to assist with that beyond your own opinion - which like mine isn't immune from critique - is precious little.

You appear to be lost for anything remotely on-topic to say, not usual but half-expected as there is little if any evidence beyond your opinion - when The Independent says grammar school abolition and related politicised antagonism has failed, it must have failed long ago, and parents support grammar schools contrary to your claim. Suggestion - try to resist the temptation to personalise the discussion with further predictable low level abuse. Good luck.

[Twincam16]

turbobloke said:

Twincam16 said:

turbobloke said:

Some of that is curious to say the least. The 11+ was and is precisely a differentiating exercise, selecting pupils in terms of cognitive ability as being more or less suited for an academic education. Being coached has a non-zero but minor impact on test outcomes and grammar schools are in the habit of releasing sample test questions to level the awareness playing field.

At the top of a stratified system - there's nothing wrong with a horses-for-courses stratified system, as you appear to confirm later in the post by supporting a differentiating exercise, which is what the 11+ is. Your phrase 'unacademic and not as important' would seem to reflect your own prejudice rather than reality, the difference is merely in terms of suitability for the more academic education offered in grammar schools.

Language of the emotive hype variety such as describing pupils as 'unacademic' (OK, factual) but then not as important relates to the politicsed activism opposing grammar schools that is now seen as missing the point and contributing to a seized-up social mobility engine.

Finally, activists took against 'it' not parents. Parents like grammar schools.

You appear to have confused your opinion with some kind of immobile, monolithic 'truth'. As usual.

The opinion I hold in relation to social moblity and grammar schools is a considered one with evidence to support it, and like other opinions it could change if the evidence/facts change.

What you've offered to assist with that beyond your own opinion - which like mine isn't immune from critique - is precious little.

You appear to be lost for anything remotely on-topic to say, not usual but half-expected as there is little if any evidence beyond your opinion - when The Independent says grammar school abolition and related politicised antagonism has failed, it must have failed long ago, and parents support grammar schools contrary to your claim. Suggestion - try to resist the temptation to personalise the discussion with further predictable low level abuse. Good luck.

No, as usual, you have couched your opinion in the language of officialdom.

Your opinion is nothing more than that - an opinion. It holds no more weight than anyone else's.

[turbobloke]

Twincam16 said:

turbobloke said:

Twincam16 said:

turbobloke said:

Some of that is curious to say the least. The 11+ was and is precisely a differentiating exercise, selecting pupils in terms of cognitive ability as being more or less suited for an academic education. Being coached has a non-zero but minor impact on test outcomes and grammar schools are in the habit of releasing sample test questions to level the awareness playing field.

At the top of a stratified system - there's nothing wrong with a horses-for-courses stratified system, as you appear to confirm later in the post by supporting a differentiating exercise, which is what the 11+ is. Your phrase 'unacademic and not as important' would seem to reflect your own prejudice rather than reality, the difference is merely in terms of suitability for the more academic education offered in grammar schools.

Language of the emotive hype variety such as describing pupils as 'unacademic' (OK, factual) but then not as important relates to the politicsed activism opposing grammar schools that is now seen as missing the point and contributing to a seized-up social mobility engine.

Finally, activists took against 'it' not parents. Parents like grammar schools.

You appear to have confused your opinion with some kind of immobile, monolithic 'truth'. As usual.

The opinion I hold in relation to social moblity and grammar schools is a considered one with evidence to support it, and like other opinions it could change if the evidence/facts change.

What you've offered to assist with that beyond your own opinion - which like mine isn't immune from critique - is precious little.

You appear to be lost for anything remotely on-topic to say, not usual but half-expected as there is little if any evidence beyond your opinion - when The Independent says grammar school abolition and related politicised antagonism has failed, it must have failed long ago, and parents support grammar schools contrary to your claim. Suggestion - try to resist the temptation to personalise the discussion with further predictable low level abuse. Good luck.

No, as usual, you have couched your opinion in the language of officialdom.

No, as usual I've offered links to articles with supporting evidence.

Did you miss them in the stampede to go personal? Which is where you are now, flailing around off-topic in an online tantrum. Boring. With luck somebody other than you will get the topic back on track.

[Twincam16]

turbobloke said:

Some of that is curious to say the least. The 11+ was and is precisely a differentiating exercise, selecting pupils in terms of cognitive ability as being more or less suited for an academic education. Being coached has a non-zero but minor impact on test outcomes and grammar schools are in the habit of releasing sample test questions to level the awareness playing field.

At the top of a stratified system - there's nothing wrong with a horses-for-courses stratified system, as you appear to confirm later in the post by supporting a differentiating exercise, which is what the 11+ is. Your phrase 'unacademic and not as important' would seem to reflect your own prejudice rather than reality, the difference is merely in terms of suitability for the more academic education offered in grammar schools.

Language of the emotive hype variety such as describing pupils as 'unacademic' (OK, factual) but then not as important relates to the politicsed activism opposing grammar schools that is now seen as missing the point and contributing to a seized-up social mobility engine.

Finally, activists took against 'it' not parents. Parents like grammar schools.

Where are the 'links to evidence' in this post then?

It's just your opinion, but you've delivered it as forcefully and pompously as possible to suggest that anything that differs from it is wrong.

It is simply my opinion that the Education Act 1944 (oh look, some third-party evidence) wasn't implemented properly as the tripartite education system it promised wasn't put into practice, because not enough was done to build and promote technical schools. Rather, we ended up with a bipartite system in most areas of the country, made up of grammar schools and secondary-moderns, a stark, black-and-white 'us and them' split between two groups of kids, aged 11.

Some parents took against it, some didn't. Some of those parents were activists, some weren't. There were supporters and detractors of the system all over the political spectrum. 'Activists took against it, parents didn't, parents like grammar schools' - that line is just a bunch of stark, I'm-right-everyone-else-is-wrong, sweeping statements.

The 1944 Act proposed a school system based, funnily enough, on the German school system, where there are many successful technical schools, as befits the country's successful manufacturing sector. The German states are allowed as part of their constitution to structure their spread of school types to suit the localised economy and demographics.

Look at where their economy is compared to ours.

I think we need to teach a much broader range of skills in schools, we need schools to specialise in a broader set of work skills, and they need to be equally valued with academia.

[turbobloke]

Twincam16 said:

turbobloke said:

Some of that is curious to say the least. The 11+ was and is precisely a differentiating exercise, selecting pupils in terms of cognitive ability as being more or less suited for an academic education. Being coached has a non-zero but minor impact on test outcomes and grammar schools are in the habit of releasing sample test questions to level the awareness playing field.

At the top of a stratified system - there's nothing wrong with a horses-for-courses stratified system, as you appear to confirm later in the post by supporting a differentiating exercise, which is what the 11+ is. Your phrase 'unacademic and not as important' would seem to reflect your own prejudice rather than reality, the difference is merely in terms of suitability for the more academic education offered in grammar schools.

Language of the emotive hype variety such as describing pupils as 'unacademic' (OK, factual) but then not as important relates to the politicsed activism opposing grammar schools that is now seen as missing the point and contributing to a seized-up social mobility engine.

Finally, activists took against 'it' not parents. Parents like grammar schools.

Where are the 'links to evidence' in this post then?

Another strawman/straw man. There was no claim to such links with evidence in that post, the obvious point you must have deliberately missed is that they were in previous recent posts, and mostly ignored by you or perhaps wholly ignored before being prompted to take a look.

Twincam16 said:

It's just your opinion, but you've delivered it as forcefully and pompously as possible to suggest that anything that differs from it is wrong.

It's not just my opinion, as the similar opinions and related evidence in the links will have shown. There's no pomposity here, but your bluster is showing.

Twincam16 said:

'Activists took against it, parents didn't, parents like grammar schools' - that line is just a bunch of stark, I'm-right-everyone-else-is-wrong, sweeping statements.

Yet it's not anything like that as the Ripon vote - which I linked to coverage of - showed clearly. Parents like grammar schools.

Twincam16 said:

Look at where their economy is compared to ours.

Let Gordon and Tony have a 13 year go at their education system and economy, then get back with the result.

Twincam16 said:

I think we need to teach a much broader range of skills in schools, we need schools to specialise in a broader set of work skills, and they need to be equally valued with academia.

Not necessarily in the same building, grammar schools offer a form of education that academic pupils will thrive on and which the country still needs as a preparation for those people when adults to take on job creating and wealth creating roles which as an acceptable generalisation they will be more likely to do.

[Twincam16]

turbobloke said:

Twincam16 said:

I think we need to teach a much broader range of skills in schools, we need schools to specialise in a broader set of work skills, and they need to be equally valued with academia.

Not necessarily in the same building, grammar schools offer a form of education that academic pupils will thrive on and which the country still needs as a preparation for those people when adults to take on job creating and wealth creating roles which as an acceptable generalisation they will be more likely to do.

My entire point, but one you have agreed with while trying very hard to look like you disagree with.

I also agree (and have stated in great depth and with whole heaps of evidence from academia, media and personal experience) that what Blair's government did to our education system was unforgiveable. I was fortunate to go to school under Major - a grammar school boy and prime example of social mobility himself, who clearly knew more about the reality of education and its effect on future opportunities than Blair, a privately-wealthy, privately-educated buffoon masquerading as a socialist in order to crowbar his way into power.

[speedy_thrills]

turbobloke said:

speedy_thrills said:

People like to think they can make good through hard work but if anything it's less likely you'll be able to elevate your standing in life today than at any time since the end of WW2. Still we pretend it's all working fine and this will have no social or economic consequences now or in the future.

...bring back grammar school...

Exactly, as with every problem from Gok Wan's "We need body confidence classes in schools" to moral decline to a general lack of interest in STEM subjects the answer is always to blame education, teachers and schools. Frankly though there is only so much a professional child minder can be expected to accomplish.

For me the dichotomy held by some modern conservatives on this topic is interesting. People from poor backgrounds can make good and be "strivers", however they do so much better in a more egalitarian society.

It appears to those of us with a socialist bent or interest in economics the "fixes" put forward for scum classes (or "precariate" if you so desire) that involve increasing inequality are counter-intuitive. We look with the same moral outage at the lazy little toerags but realize in a sense they are a product of the way we structure our society.

How do conservatives reconcile this with their own views?

[Mario149]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I watch what knife and fork she picks up at the posh restaurants and copy her.

I've never understood why people have difficulty with this...you just start on the outside and work inwards!

[turbobloke]

speedy_thrills said:

turbobloke said:

speedy_thrills said:

People like to think they can make good through hard work but if anything it's less likely you'll be able to elevate your standing in life today than at any time since the end of WW2. Still we pretend it's all working fine and this will have no social or economic consequences now or in the future.

...bring back grammar school...

Exactly, as with every problem from Gok Wan's "We need body confidence classes in schools" to moral decline to a general lack of interest in STEM subjects the answer is always to blame education, teachers and schools.

Yet another example of arguing against something that wasn't said but (presumably) you wished I'd said? Or was it just a bit of grandstanding for openers?!

That generalisation bears no relation to anything I've posted, bar an obviously humorous single liner some while ago 'I blame the teachers' which from the smiley attached was very clearly not intended to be taken seriously. I've spelt out the importance of education and teaching as a profession in several posts on this thread and have taken a reasoned line in contributing to it (lost on Twincam16, by design).

speedy_thrills said:

For me the dichotomy held by some modern conservatives on this topic is interesting. People from poor backgrounds can make good and be "strivers", however they do so much better in a more egalitarian society.

It's not possible to re-run societal evolution as an experiment under different conditions, in any country. There are so many variables at play in the comparison you gave that any specific conclusion on contributory factors is impossible.

What is clear in this country is that grammar schools benefit poor pupils and are very effective social moblity engines for poor pupils, and given that these academic individuals are more liklely to be the employers and wealth creators of the future, their achievements will have wider beneits.

speedy_thrills said:

It appears to those of us with a socialist bent or interest in economics the "fixes" put forward for scum classes (or "precariate" if you so desire) that involve increasing inequality are counter-intuitive.

Where does that assertion on increasing inequality derive from? Your imagination perhaps? For increasing inequality, look to non-Conservative governments.

Inequality worse under Labour than under Margaret Thatcher

Article said:

In a speech, Gordon Brown said that the former Conservative leader was to blame for low rates of social mobility which had "stalled" in the 1970s and 1980s. He claimed some of "Thatcher's children" have become "the lost generation." But analysis of official figures instead indicates that inequality has not been improved by Labour, according to Maurice Fitzpatrick, an economist at accountants Grant Thornton. He said: "The official figures for income inequality show that income inequality under Labour so far (2008) has been higher on average than it was under Lady Thatcher."

Education gap for poorest pupils widens under Labour

Education failures due to Labour prioritising inclusion

And although data in the above articles includes official figures not DT fabrication, here are some links from other sources. The last one may be behind a paywall now.

Primary pupils basic skills failure under Labour

Youth reoffending increase since 2000

Top income growth drove rise in income inequality under Labour

Gulf in health between rich and poor widens under Labour government

speedy_thrills said:

We look with the same moral outage at the lazy little toerags but realize in a sense they are a product of the way we structure our society.

They are the result of bad life decisions by individuals, not always the individuals under scrutiny (parents too) but including them, bad decisions which are encouraged by the nonsensical myth that the State can and will take care of somebody from cradle to grave. This ignores free will to act against self-interest or group interest, also it ignores unaffordability as well as incompetence of officialdumb particularly when led by the left. It's basically another logical fallacy 'appeal to society'.

speedy_thrills said:

How do conservatives reconcile this with their own views?

As you successfuly misrepresented 'their own views' this requires nothing in reply.

[FiF]

Apologies for offering an opinion that I really CBA to go research and find links to support, but in all this argument about grammar, secondary moderns and where were the technical schools, well in my day we had a veritable feast of technical colleges.

Those taught the skills necessary for engineering and trades, including foundation classes and courses to bring those attending up to standard in subjects where perhaps they hadn't done so well at school. Or possibly were not being of an age where they were interested and couldn't see the need for pure and applied maths and the like.

Where are these technical schools now? Blair's universities most of them. Our local uni used to be a teacher training college, and a mediocre one at that.

[Colonial]

If you took the time to do the test and cared about the result, you are middle class.

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

Apologies for offering an opinion that I really CBA to go research and find links to support

No need, but if I did that the usual suspects would be on my case before you could say petty bickering. How did you acquire immunity

And shame on you for offering an opinion based on the reality of experience as opposed to some received wisdom bks out of the failed dogma manual.

[0000]

Apparently I'm Elite. What a waste of time that was.

Twincam16 said:

Problem with grammar schools was that they were at the top of a stratified school system, rather than just one of an equally-regarded spectrum of schools focusing on a particular skill area.

s/Problem with/The strength of

It's only a problem for the schools that get the dross at the bottom.