This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 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. 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. Although I have no idea how the thread on Jeremy Corbyn now seems to a free-for-all about any policy and any topic!
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| 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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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. Although I have no idea how the thread on Jeremy Corbyn now seems to a free-for-all about any policy and any topic!
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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 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. 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)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 12 Oct 16 11.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
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. Sorry I'm probably being thick but I don't see the connection between the two. Irrespective, even if it was, then it's irrelevant. The point is that what evidence there is shows that social mobility is reduced by grammar schools and that grammar schools have less pupils from poor backgrounds than they should. They reinforce social divisions and the average performance of those in surrounding schools deteriorates.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 12 Oct 16 11.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Sorry I'm probably being thick but I don't see the connection between the two. Irrespective, even if it was, then it's irrelevant. The point is that what evidence there is shows that social mobility is reduced by grammar schools and that grammar schools have less pupils from poor backgrounds than they should. They reinforce social divisions and the average performance of those in surrounding schools deteriorates. He said 'Kids of below above average intelligence are being coached to pass the eleven +. This stops poorer socio-economic background kids of above intelligence getting in'. I asked for evidence and that was when Nick provided the article on Bucks - which can't be representative if it's the second most prosperous county in the country.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 12 Oct 16 11.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
He said 'Kids of below above average intelligence are being coached to pass the eleven +. This stops poorer socio-economic background kids of above intelligence getting in'. I asked for evidence and that was when Nick provided the article on Bucks - which can't be representative if it's the second most prosperous county in the country. The two aren't mutually exclusive though? If Bucks has less children from poorer backgrounds, that doesn't mean it can't have an even smaller portion going to grammar schools? 3% FSM kids go to grammar schools and then national average is 13%. If Bucks has only 8% on FSM, but still has 3% going to grammar school that would still support his argument? I haven't read the report he linked but as far as I can see Nick never said Bucks was an example of social deprivation.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 12 Oct 16 11.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
The two aren't mutually exclusive though? If Bucks has less children from poorer backgrounds, that doesn't mean it can't have an even smaller portion going to grammar schools? 3% FSM kids go to grammar schools and then national average is 13%. If Bucks has only 8% on FSM, but still has 3% going to grammar school that would still support his argument? I haven't read the report he linked but as far as I can see Nick never said Bucks was an example of social deprivation. You'll have to ask Nick as it's his argument, not mine. So for absolute clarity - Nick made a statement - I asked for some evidence and he provided the article on Bucks as an example. Socio-economic deprivation and fsm's as evidenced by a report in the paper on Bucks.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 12 Oct 16 11.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
You'll have to ask Nick as it's his argument, not mine. So for absolute clarity - Nick made a statement - I asked for some evidence and he provided the article on Bucks as an example. Socio-economic deprivation and fsm's as evidenced by a report in the paper on Bucks. Fair enough - I suggest it is worth moving on anyway! If you were looking for evidence of the impact of grammar schools on social mobility then instead I would point to [Link]
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 12 Oct 16 12.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Fair enough - I suggest it is worth moving on anyway! If you were looking for evidence of the impact of grammar schools on social mobility then instead I would point to [Link] A main cause of this significant under-representation of disadvantaged pupils in grammar schools is that, by the time the ‘11 Plus’ entry exam (or equivalent) is taken, 60 per cent of the disadvantaged attainment gap – equivalent to 10 months of learning by this stage – has emerged. If true, the problem isn't grammar schools Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (12 Oct 2016 12.54pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 12 Oct 16 1.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
A main cause of this significant under-representation of disadvantaged pupils in grammar schools is that, by the time the ‘11 Plus’ entry exam (or equivalent) is taken, 60 per cent of the disadvantaged attainment gap – equivalent to 10 months of learning by this stage – has emerged. If true, the problem isn't grammar schools Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (12 Oct 2016 12.54pm) Also there are so few Grammars and by definition they are all in areas that still support the Grammar system - that most stats are going to be questionable in terms of error rates and skew etc.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 12 Oct 16 2.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
A main cause of this significant under-representation of disadvantaged pupils in grammar schools is that, by the time the ‘11 Plus’ entry exam (or equivalent) is taken, 60 per cent of the disadvantaged attainment gap – equivalent to 10 months of learning by this stage – has emerged. If true, the problem isn't grammar schools Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (12 Oct 2016 12.54pm) It means that grammar schools aren't the solution to the problem. Or certainly not unless they can figure out a way of adjusting for expected shortfalls in attainment by the 11+
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.