The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[the_bloke]

On 30/05/2020 at 14:13, Pettytom said:

Why would a grammar school make any difference?

According to the party of which Kier is one of many grammar school educated leaders, grammar schools promote inequality and give pupils an unfair advantage in life. Therefore Labour wants to abolish grammar schools, presumably at the point all of the Labour MP's with children at these schools have left school.

 

It's astonishing hypocrisy for people who had advantages in life to remove those advantages after they themselves have reaped the rewards.

[the_bloke]

48 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

Labour doesn't want to abolish grammar schools.  Like the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, they don't plan to open any new ones, but they're not proposing to abolish them.

 

Some Tories say they want to open new ones (and some don't), but they've never done anything about it.  The most they've done is to fund a few extra places in existing grammar schools.

 

Labour policy has always been that everybody needs a proper education, not just people who can get into a grammar school or whose parents can afford to send them to a private school.  It's not hypocritical to think that, even if you went to one of those schools yourself.

 

Keir Starmer's children go to their local state school, according to the Daily Mail.

 

There is indeed evidence that grammar schools do promote inequality - though I appreciate that of course all your children and grandchildren would get into one, same as for everybody else who advocates them, so that's OK.

 

And it's Keir, K-e-i-r.

 

Any more questions?

Ah yes, my mistake. Of course, Labour members voted to abolish private schools (of which K-e-i-r (Sir) went to one) at their party conference but it never made it to the manifesto.  It was back in the 90's they wanted to scrap grammar schools wasn't it.

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-manifesto-private-schools-free-movement-immigration-tax-1318962

 

Keir seems keen to hide the fact he went to a fee paying school.

 

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-leadership-qa-sir-keir-starmer/

 

You are obviously a big fan. Do you think he can overturn an 80 odd seat majority in 4 years time?

[Pettytom]

4 hours ago, the_bloke said:

According to the party of which Kier is one of many grammar school educated leaders, grammar schools promote inequality and give pupils an unfair advantage in life. Therefore Labour wants to abolish grammar schools, presumably at the point all of the Labour MP's with children at these schools have left school.

 

It's astonishing hypocrisy for people who had advantages in life to remove those advantages after they themselves have reaped the rewards.

There is plenty of research out there that shows that grammar schools do little, or nothing to promote social mobility.

 

I asked the question, because it was suggested that Starmer’s grammar school education had somehow bestowed privilege upon him. He and I both arrived at Leeds University in October 1982. Starmer via a grammar school, me via a comprehensive. Plenty of others arrived via the private schools.
 

So, the type of school we attended made no difference in this case. The fact that Starmer is leader of the Opposition and I’m arguing the toss with a random bloke on the internet has more to do with his tenacity and talent, than his schooling. 

[the_bloke]

40 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

There is plenty of research out there that shows that grammar schools do little, or nothing to promote social mobility.

 

I asked the question, because it was suggested that Starmer’s grammar school education had somehow bestowed privilege upon him. He and I both arrived at Leeds University in October 1982. Starmer via a grammar school, me via a comprehensive. Plenty of others arrived via the private schools.
 

So, the type of school we attended made no difference in this case. The fact that Starmer is leader of the Opposition and I’m arguing the toss with a random bloke on the internet has more to do with his tenacity and talent, than his schooling. 

With all due respect, you didn't go on to have a glittering career at the bar and are now a Sir. Or maybe you did.

 

It's documented that grammar schools have a better chance on increased social mobility and future earnings; https://fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/

[Pettytom]

4 hours ago, the_bloke said:

With all due respect, you didn't go on to have a glittering career at the bar and are now a Sir. Or maybe you did.

 

It's documented that grammar schools have a better chance on increased social mobility and future earnings; https://fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/

Did you read the article that you linked to?

 

If so, how did you reach your conclusion?

 

For that matter, did you bother to read my post properly?

Edited June 1, 2020 by Pettytom

[the_bloke]

9 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Did you read the article that you linked to?

 

If so, how did you reach your conclusion?

 

For that matter, did you bother to read my post properly?

The conclusion is in the link. 

 

Overall, attending a grammar school does seem to be good for your educational attainment and earnings later in life, according to the IFS.

It cites two academic studies on children born in the 1950s as evidence that “attending a grammar school is good for the attainment and later earnings of those who get in”.

But it goes on to say “there is equally good evidence that those in selective areas who don’t pass the eleven plus do worse than they would have done in a comprehensive system”.

That’s the same for Northern Ireland, according to the IFS. It examined the evidence from the expansion of grammar schools in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s. Average performance in Northern Ireland improved, it said, but the gap between the top performers and the low performers widened, with pupils not going to grammar schools doing worse.

[the_bloke]

7 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

At the last general election, the Lib Dems were the only party (in England at least) whose manifesto committed them firmly to "opposing any future expansion of grammar schools".

 

https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan - see "Our Plan for Better Education and Skills / Accountable Local Schools"

 

Speaking as a "centrist", how do you feel about that?

I'm not just a centrist, I'm also a believer in free choice. If grammar schools are available then people should have the freedom to send their children to one, and if the government policy is to increase the number of schools then so be it. More choice is better for all. My only caveat is that the alternative of a grammar school should be a school tailored for the needs of the pupils who may excel in different academic areas and it actually encourage learning and not be a dumping ground like secondary moderns were in the 1960s.

 

Not sure why the Lib Dems matter here. Or anywhere really.

 

I also don't agree with banning private schools either (or 'redistributing' them to the state as Labour voted on at the 2019 conference). If parents want to send their children to a fee paying school, like Keir Starmer's parents did, then it's their choice. Big deal. Get over it etc.  Just don't reap the benefit of it then prevent others from doing so, which goes back to my original post in this discussion. It smacks of the politics of envy especially when coming out the mouth of Angela Rayner.

 

Your feelings on that last point is if you believe that people get a better start in life by going to grammar or fee paying schools or not. I believe they do, you presumably do not.

[Pettytom]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

The conclusion is in the link. 

 

Overall, attending a grammar school does seem to be good for your educational attainment and earnings later in life, according to the IFS.

It cites two academic studies on children born in the 1950s as evidence that “attending a grammar school is good for the attainment and later earnings of those who get in”.

But it goes on to say “there is equally good evidence that those in selective areas who don’t pass the eleven plus do worse than they would have done in a comprehensive system”.

That’s the same for Northern Ireland, according to the IFS. It examined the evidence from the expansion of grammar schools in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s. Average performance in Northern Ireland improved, it said, but the gap between the top performers and the low performers widened, with pupils not going to grammar schools doing worse.

There is no doubt that grammar schools are good for those who go. There is uncertainty about exactly how much better students do, but they do better.

 

However, there are two big problems. You’ve alluded to one, the students who don’t get in can be very disadvantaged by the process. Secondly,  students from disadvantaged backgrounds don’t take much advantage of grammar schools, leaving them as largely a middle class preserve. So they are pretty much useless as an engine for social mobility.

 

What we actually need are good schools for all. That is possible, but it is expensive. London would be a good model for the rest of the country to follow.

[Baron99]

2 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

I don't think that grammar schools are seen as a "dumping ground", quite the opposite!

 

[Edit:  On reflection I think you meant "alternative to".]

Because you describe yourself as a "centrist", i.e. a Lib Dem, New Labour or possibly Greens voter.  [By no stretch of the imagination could the Tories be described as "centrist", other than for propaganda purposes.]

 

Because you are trying to represent Labour as being out of the mainstream for opposing the expansion of grammar schools, whereas the opposite is the case.  The 2019 Tory manifesto doesn't even mention grammar schools.

Ting!  I claim my prize for spotting today's first entry from the Blessed Margaret Thatcher Catechism of Cliché!

 

Like I say, you're really going to have to come up with some new propaganda slogans.  That one went out with the 1990s (or should have done).

 

You seem to have a bit of an obsession with the minutiae of Keir Starmer's upbringing, but my understanding is that he passed his 11-plus, which got him into Reigate Grammar School, which was state-funded at the time but converted to independent status during his time there.  I confess I don't know whether it was his parents or the state that paid his fees after that.

 

Otherwise, see @Pettytom's post.  Nobody is denying that grammar schools and fee-paying schools give an advantage [not necessarily just an educational advantage, by the way - old school ties and all that] to the predominantly better-off children who go to them, under the present system.  The question is more the impact on the vast majority of children who don't go to them - it's this impact that renders them the enemy of social mobility.

And yet some people get so uptight, upset & defensive about Starmer attending a grammar school, which his staunch Labour parents, didn't remove him from, when it became fee paying for, I believe, his 3 final years. 

 

Although it could be argued that they were being truely responsible parents, only wanting the best for their son. It does appear to have given him a good foundation for the rest of his life. 

[Baron99]

So the post-mortem report into Labour's crushing defeat at the last General Election has been brought out by the 'Labour Together' project. 

 

Now there's an oxymoron. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53096233

 

What’s really surprising is they actually needed to spend time, money & effort to try & work out why they were abysmal at the GE? 

 

I could have saved them the effort.  Two words, the first begins with a 'J'. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Baron99