Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[Kermit power]

turbobloke said:

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.

Is it not more a case that grammar schools largely only remained in well off areas, because those were the areas which elected Conservative councils who fought to keep their local grammar schools when they were initially being shut down?

[anonymous-user]

Kermit power said:

turbobloke said:

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.

Is it not more a case that grammar schools largely only remained in well off areas, because those were the areas which elected Conservative councils who fought to keep their local grammar schools when they were initially being shut down?

The Grammar School I attended, Dr Challoners, was (and still is) in very wealthy Amersham. Many of the students, especially those in my year, were not from wealthy backgrounds but were from those at the bottom end of the economic spectrum from miles around. Location of school does not necessarily equate to the location or wealth of the students. Most of my friends, including myself, were given an opportunity the local comprehensive would never have offered.

[AstonZagato]

sugerbear said:

No, but she did choose not to include any studies that proved/disproved the case for grammar schools. She only chose a single quote from what I can tell in her speech.

That is my point. If you are going to use a study, you'd better be sure it backs your case. Corbyn would have been better off saying that he wanted free school meals because that was the right thing to do, not because a study said it would raise attainment.

He is stupid.

May never claimed she was backed by scientific research. She is not stupid.

Both are playing to their audience.

[Kermit power]

garyhun said:

Kermit power said:

turbobloke said:

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.

Is it not more a case that grammar schools largely only remained in well off areas, because those were the areas which elected Conservative councils who fought to keep their local grammar schools when they were initially being shut down?

The Grammar School I attended, Dr Challoners, was (and still is) in very wealthy Amersham. Many of the students, especially those in my year, were not from wealthy backgrounds but were from those at the bottom end of the economic spectrum from miles around. Location of school does not necessarily equate to the location or wealth of the students. Most of my friends, including myself, were given an opportunity the local comprehensive would never have offered.

We went to the same school then.

That experience was exactly the one which drove my previous post. Whilst Challoners certainly had people from every tier of the local economic spectrum, that's within a South Bucks bubble which is a totally different world to the vast majority of the rest of the country!

The lowly residents of Chalfont St Peter might seem like utter paupers when looked at from Chalfont St Giles or Gerrards Cross, but they're rolling in clover compared to many of the grammar school free areas in the rest of the country.

There's a reason why Chiltern District Council has 35 Conservative councillors, 3 Lib Dems, 2 UKIP and no Labour, and it's not because they poor downtrodden masses there have been deprived of their votes!

[BlackLabel]

When one Corbyn in parliament just isn't enough.

"Jeremy Corbyn's son 'planning to stand as MP in safe Labour seat' "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/20/jeremy-...

[sugerbear]

turbobloke said:

What "research" that "disproves" the case for grammar schools did she exclude? References would be great, links if possible. TIA if you have time.

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.

Google "Radio 4 - More or less grammer schools" if you want the other side. or this http://schoolsweek.co.uk/epi-grammar-schools-repor...

or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

To summarize...

Do grammars work?

The first claim is easy to check. There is no aggregate improvement in results in areas that are wholly selective. The most important change is a clear distributional shift in who does well. In short, the minority of children streamed into the grammars do better. The remaining majority of children - who are not educated in grammars - do slightly worse.

You can also bang on about other things like social mobility, but really that isn't what this is about, this is about educational attainment and grammars have no impact on that. White and Black children are also under represented in grammars.

I wouldn't trust either TM or JC as they are both as weasly as each other.

[audidoody]

BlackLabel said:

When one Corbyn in parliament just isn't enough.

"Jeremy Corbyn's son 'planning to stand as MP in safe Labour seat' "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/20/jeremy-...

Is this what he meant by "the Establishment versus the People"?

[FN2TypeR]

audidoody said:

BlackLabel said:

When one Corbyn in parliament just isn't enough.

"Jeremy Corbyn's son 'planning to stand as MP in safe Labour seat' "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/20/jeremy-...

Is this what he meant by "the Establishment versus the People"?

Versus the people**

• and my family

[LordLoveLength]

Burwood said:

latest sound bite 'powerful people don't want me as PM'

Yeah - well just wait till they see the projected tractor production and grain harvest figures in the manifesto.

[LordLoveLength]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39658427

Oh dear - party now trying to eliminate any challenge to jeremy

[jmorgan]

LordLoveLength said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39658427

Oh dear - party now trying to eliminate any challenge to jeremy

Wonder what he said about Len.

[98elise]

garyhun said:

Kermit power said:

turbobloke said:

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.

Is it not more a case that grammar schools largely only remained in well off areas, because those were the areas which elected Conservative councils who fought to keep their local grammar schools when they were initially being shut down?

The Grammar School I attended, Dr Challoners, was (and still is) in very wealthy Amersham. Many of the students, especially those in my year, were not from wealthy backgrounds but were from those at the bottom end of the economic spectrum from miles around. Location of school does not necessarily equate to the location or wealth of the students. Most of my friends, including myself, were given an opportunity the local comprehensive would never have offered.

My daughter goes to Grammar school. The nearest 3 are in Chatham and Rochester so hardly wealthy area's, and IIRC they operate a catchment area. The one in Rochester is excellent.

[Lance Catamaran]

98elise said:

My daughter goes to Grammar school. The nearest 3 are in Chatham and Rochester so hardly wealthy area's, and IIRC they operate a catchment area. The one in Rochester is excellent.

O/T but I went to Chatham Boys Grammar, though I think it's called something else now

[br d]

LordLoveLength said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39658427

Oh dear - party now trying to eliminate any challenge to jeremy

They've been learning from Turkey.

[Dr Jekyll]

sugerbear said:

There is no aggregate improvement in results in areas that are wholly selective. The most important change is a clear distributional shift in who does well. In short, the minority of children streamed into the grammars do better. The remaining majority of children - who are not educated in grammars - do slightly worse.

Is there any reason why every school couldn't be a grammar school?

[robm3]

don'tbesilly said:

garyhun said:

turbobloke said:

If I heard a local radio report correctly, Labour has leaked its own loss of membership, down 26,000 in just over six months. Not good. We need Corbyn to stay put as 'leader' for as long as possible including post-2020 to see off another disastrous Labour economic fustercluck.

Surely that's the 26,000 who joined for a fiver just to make sure he stayed out last time!

Regarding the car sickness excuse - WTJF are they on and

Dawn Butler, car sickness and fixing the trains in Copeland, the same train service that Liz Truss used!

Comedy gold

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fIxz5g512Q

More Dawn Butler Conedy
Dawn Butler MP interviewed on Radio 4's PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304

[ChemicalChaos]

br d said:

LordLoveLength said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39658427

Oh dear - party now trying to eliminate any challenge to jeremy

They've been learning from Turkey.

"Quick, think of something we can charge him with!"

https://order-order.com/2017/04/20/len-purges-coyn...

[loafer123]

robm3 said:

More Dawn Butler Conedy
Dawn Butler MP interviewed on Radio 4's PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304

God, that was funny.

It is a wonder that she manages to work out how to leave the house in the morning, she's so thick.

[bazza white]

loafer123 said:

robm3 said:

More Dawn Butler Conedy
Dawn Butler MP interviewed on Radio 4's PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304

God, that was funny.

It is a wonder that she manages to work out how to leave the house in the morning, she's so thick.

It's not funny it's an embarrassment and Im not even a labour voter.

[Gargamel]

Dear God. Imagine being so distant form reality that you think calling an election is rigging the system.

Also to cite an example of a large company avoiding tax, but not be able to produce either an accurate fact or even a definite name. Shocking.

Dreadful, not able to form any kind of argument.