Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
It seems that Corbyn based his idea on a study that found that kids in deprived areas who universally got free school meals did better than those in other deprived areas that did not have universally free meals.
The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
P5BNij said:
Mothersruin said:
jjlynn27 said:
Could he really be so out of touch?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39504339
For the effective opposition to exist, he really needs to go. Fast.
Jesus - that is shockingly bad, even by his standards.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39504339
For the effective opposition to exist, he really needs to go. Fast.
"She said that in a "true meritocracy" the emphasis should be on supporting the 93% of pupils in state schools."
Surely in a true meritocracy, the best float to the top? Not the 'chosen' 93%??
She is an utter abhoration of an MP.
That woman deserves no place in any modern political world.....
AstonZagato said:
The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
If it was Angela Rayner's idea I wouldn't credit her with misrepresenting the study. Much more likely she simply didn't understand it, but picked up on the word 'free'. And as we know free is good.I saw she said one of the benefits would be a reduction in stigma/bullying of FSM kids, as they'd all be in the same boat. I'd wager any half decent parent, once they've seen/been reported how great the state meals are would be providing packed lunches or money to voluntarily opt out. And you'd be back to square one.
But that's what happens when you try to equalise everyone to the lowest common denominator.
"Jeremy Corbyn 'likely to stay on' even if Labour suffers crushing election defeat
Party leader will try to stay on until at least autumn to secure a left-wing legacy, sources say"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jere...
TLandCruiser said:
Could you claim the vat back if your were VAT registered?
Not on razors, no. This was a completely iniquitous assault on the working classes, who had to pay for disposable razors, unlike the gentry who had a man to do it for them with a strop and a cutthroat.This, of course, gave rise to the famous Labour Hairy Protest of 1983, famously inspired by Gerry Adams regaling Corbyn with stories of the 1978 Dirty Protests in a cosy fireside chat several months before the above photo was taken.
It is widely believed in Labour circles that Ken Livingstone's recent suspension from the Labour party was, in fact, revenge for the fact that he was a moustache-only splitter in the days of the Great Struggle.
Edited by Kermit power on Thursday 20th April 07:48
AstonZagato said:
It seems that Corbyn based his idea on a study that found that kids in deprived areas who universally got free school meals did better than those in other deprived areas that did not have universally free meals.
The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
In fairness all parties at one time or another have chosen headline grabbing policies and ideas which goes against the evidence. Mrs May's Grammar schools being a prime example from the other side. The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
sugerbear said:
AstonZagato said:
It seems that Corbyn based his idea on a study that found that kids in deprived areas who universally got free school meals did better than those in other deprived areas that did not have universally free meals.
The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
In fairness all parties at one time or another have chosen headline grabbing policies and ideas which goes against the evidence. Mrs May's Grammar schools being a prime example from the other side. The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
I saw a lovely quote from a voter in Darlington this morning: "Politicians are like nappies: they are full of s
t and need changing regularly."However, I'm not sure May ever cited a study to back her case (I seem to remember it was more of a "I believe this helps social mobility and is better for gifted children" rather than "studies have shown that..."). It is just plain stupid to use a piece of scientific research to back your case without checking that it actually does back your case.
PositronicRay said:
We will campaign on the streets
We will campaign on the sea fronts
We will campaign on the beaches (or should that be beeches)
All accompanied by that strange bobbing head movement / one eye closed / going through the motions body language he usually gives off, as if he doesn't really want to be there. Might be sticking my neck out here, but I'll wager homemade jam production will go into overdrive come the 9th of June.We will campaign on the sea fronts
We will campaign on the beaches (or should that be beeches)
And what of his 'left wing legacy'...? I hope someday the top dogs in the Labour Party look back on the Corbyn period and realise what a waste of opposition it was, and how out of touch he is (despite him saying exactly the same thing about those nasty Tories). I know I keep banging on about it in some of these N,P&E threads but as an ex Labour man I find it all so sad and pitiful. I had an email from my ASLEF rep the other day asking for a contribution to the 'fighting fund', I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
AstonZagato said:
sugerbear said:
AstonZagato said:
It seems that Corbyn based his idea on a study that found that kids in deprived areas who universally got free school meals did better than those in other deprived areas that did not have universally free meals.
The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
In fairness all parties at one time or another have chosen headline grabbing policies and ideas which goes against the evidence. Mrs May's Grammar schools being a prime example from the other side. The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
I saw a lovely quote from a voter in Darlington this morning: "Politicians are like nappies: they are full of s
t and need changing regularly."However, I'm not sure May ever cited a study to back her case (I seem to remember it was more of a "I believe this helps social mobility and is better for gifted children" rather than "studies have shown that..."). It is just plain stupid to use a piece of scientific research to back your case without checking that it actually does back your case.
She said.. " Indeed, the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils is reduced to almost zero for children in selective schools."
Which may well be true, but poor children are very much under represented in grammar schools.
grammar schools / free school meals are just a bribe to the voters of which ever party, what might make a difference is injecting serious resource into educating 5-11 year olds where it can make a difference. That wont happen because it lacks the quick bribe / sound bite that politicans just love.
sugerbear said:
AstonZagato said:
sugerbear said:
AstonZagato said:
It seems that Corbyn based his idea on a study that found that kids in deprived areas who universally got free school meals did better than those in other deprived areas that did not have universally free meals.
The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
In fairness all parties at one time or another have chosen headline grabbing policies and ideas which goes against the evidence. Mrs May's Grammar schools being a prime example from the other side. The author of the study was on Radio 4 this evening saying that there was no evidence that free school meals in all schools would have the same beneficial effect and that he was misrepresenting the results of the study.
I saw a lovely quote from a voter in Darlington this morning: "Politicians are like nappies: they are full of s
t and need changing regularly."However, I'm not sure May ever cited a study to back her case (I seem to remember it was more of a "I believe this helps social mobility and is better for gifted children" rather than "studies have shown that..."). It is just plain stupid to use a piece of scientific research to back your case without checking that it actually does back your case.
She said.. " Indeed, the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils is reduced to almost zero for children in selective schools."
Which may well be true, but poor children are very much under represented in grammar schools.
Fiona Millar writing in The Guardian won't cut it, as you will surely appreciate.
There's a PH thread on grammar schools which includes compelling evidence from Ofsted research which makes the case for grammar schools.
The poor children being under-represented aspect is due in the main part to grammar schools being so few and far between. Only wealthy parents can buy or rent in the LA catchment area of a grammar school purely to enable their child(ren) to take the entry test and possibly gain a place. As a result, house prices go up and poorer families are house-priced-out of grammar school locations.
Two or three grammar schools in every town would go a long way to fixing that.
O/T for more info on this aspect:
"...it was more of a "I believe this helps social mobility and is better for gifted children" rather than "studies have shown that..."
The social mobility engine within grammar schools was found by Ofsted to relate not only to quality of teaching matching and meeting the needs of very able pupils far more than in non-selective schools but also to the higher expectations of pupils that are routinely found in grammars. Ofsted compared grammars with the independent school success story in this regard. When pupils get better results and aspire to top jobs, which is clearly the case for grammar schools (see DfE League Tables as well as Ofsted research) the social mobility aspect is so obvious it barely needs evidencing, but evidencing is good.
The average increase in lifetime productivity per additional pupil achieving the equivalent of 5+ GCSEs at A*-C is £100,000 for men and £85,000 for women, based on an analysis using two 2007 papers - one by S McIntosh and another from Jenkins, Greenwood & Vignoles (mentioned in the Academies Bill Impact Assessment).
There are no measurable financial benefits to NVQ level 2 qualifications studied in colleges, according to a review of evidence by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. However, the review said that five good GCSEs - a level 2 qualification - would give a higher earnings boost, at 25 per cent, than level 3 vocational courses.
For men whose highest qualification is only a single A-level pass, an hourly earnings premium of 46% is enjoyed over those men with no qualifications. This increases to 59% for those men who have gained two or more A-levels. The comparable figures for women are 37% for single A-level achievers and 45% for those with 2 or more A-levels. From O'Leary and Sloan (2004).
The average monetary value of completing a degree over and above 2 or more ‘A’ Levels is approximately £129,000 (PriceWaterhouseCoopers report for the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics, but this particular figure does not relate solely to physics or chemistry graduates).
The monetary value of a degree is defined in the above as the difference in the present value of the after-tax employment adjusted lifetime earnings of representative degree level holders compared to representative individuals in possession of 2 or more A Levels. The figure of £129,000 relates to the 2005/6 financial year, and is not adjusted for inflation. Figures from other sources put the advantage as high as £160,000 to £190,000
The idea that grammar schools don't improve social mobility is absurd. Any "research" claiming this is almost certain to use questionable methodology. The 'almost' here is because it's not possible to locate and read it all, hence the request for examples.
"...it was more of a "I believe this helps social mobility and is better for gifted children" rather than "studies have shown that..."
The social mobility engine within grammar schools was found by Ofsted to relate not only to quality of teaching matching and meeting the needs of very able pupils far more than in non-selective schools but also to the higher expectations of pupils that are routinely found in grammars. Ofsted compared grammars with the independent school success story in this regard. When pupils get better results and aspire to top jobs, which is clearly the case for grammar schools (see DfE League Tables as well as Ofsted research) the social mobility aspect is so obvious it barely needs evidencing, but evidencing is good.
The average increase in lifetime productivity per additional pupil achieving the equivalent of 5+ GCSEs at A*-C is £100,000 for men and £85,000 for women, based on an analysis using two 2007 papers - one by S McIntosh and another from Jenkins, Greenwood & Vignoles (mentioned in the Academies Bill Impact Assessment).
There are no measurable financial benefits to NVQ level 2 qualifications studied in colleges, according to a review of evidence by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. However, the review said that five good GCSEs - a level 2 qualification - would give a higher earnings boost, at 25 per cent, than level 3 vocational courses.
For men whose highest qualification is only a single A-level pass, an hourly earnings premium of 46% is enjoyed over those men with no qualifications. This increases to 59% for those men who have gained two or more A-levels. The comparable figures for women are 37% for single A-level achievers and 45% for those with 2 or more A-levels. From O'Leary and Sloan (2004).
The average monetary value of completing a degree over and above 2 or more ‘A’ Levels is approximately £129,000 (PriceWaterhouseCoopers report for the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics, but this particular figure does not relate solely to physics or chemistry graduates).
The monetary value of a degree is defined in the above as the difference in the present value of the after-tax employment adjusted lifetime earnings of representative degree level holders compared to representative individuals in possession of 2 or more A Levels. The figure of £129,000 relates to the 2005/6 financial year, and is not adjusted for inflation. Figures from other sources put the advantage as high as £160,000 to £190,000
The idea that grammar schools don't improve social mobility is absurd. Any "research" claiming this is almost certain to use questionable methodology. The 'almost' here is because it's not possible to locate and read it all, hence the request for examples.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 20th April 12:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff