Current Affairs

[towny44]

I cannot agree with either Frank or Alan, I went to a grammar school and despite mediocre O levels it was the educational standard I received that enabled me to make a successful business career.
In addition I do believe they improved social mobility, in my year of 60 pupils significantly more than half came from poor working class families, and many of them would probably have struggled to achieve the same educational standard at a secondary modern, or even today's comprehensive, and they certainly would not have been able to achieve the quality of jobs they did.
However I do accept that it appeared to be divisive in the way the 11 plus was run, but discarding it on the altar of comprehensive education for all was IMO the biggest mistake ever made. It would have been far better to use the grammar school model to improve the standard of the secondary moderns, which is what I hope this new policy will seek to achieve.
But I do agree with Frank that we badly need to improve parenting skills and parent teacher cooperation, however I feel that most of these problems stem from the poor quality of some of the inner city comprehensives, which have sadly failed their pupils over the last 40 years, producing a badly educated and virtually unemployable underclass.

[Silver_Shiney]

It clearly worked for you, John, but all I said was that I am not sure I benefitted from it. We will never know.

[oldbluefox]

Truth is with all the variables which come into play at various stages from 11-18 there is no one size fits all. However those with the money will always have an advantage over those without. That's life. However the opportunities should still be there for the working class child to achieve their full potential.
More significant maybe, is that class barriers in the upper echelons of the Civil Service and Foreign Office, and the 'old boy network' still prevalent in our society need to be challenged.

[Frank Manning]

My point really is not whether Grammar Schools are good or bad, I think education is a political football. However, we surely need a period of stability in education while we look at the other issues.

When we and our children were babies if we were lucky they rode in prams, where they sat facing the person pushing. There was usually interaction between the parent and child. Today they seem to sit in buggies facing forwards, and the parent pushes with no interaction, often because they are tippy tappying away on their smart phone. We see Mums sitting having coffee with friends chatting and tippy tappying away while the children are ignored. From such beginnings come a kind of apathy about the child and its learning, and an expectation that the school will do all the education, and woe betide the school/teacher if the parent is upset by the school's expectations. This is why we British have far fewer 'Tiger Mums' than some of our Asian friends, who set expectations for the children and work with them to aid their achievement.

I know there is some generalisation in this, but thats the way it eems.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I've often said that health and education are so important there should be cross party agreement on a minimum 20 year strategy. But there never will be because they are issues that win and lose elections.

[oldbluefox]

I think you are so Moneysupermarket right Frank. The level of poor parenting in this country is appalling. The first five formative years are so important to a child's education but in too many cases children have been ignored and left to their own devices and are seen as an accessory to accompany their parents' 50" TV, tattoos, manicured nails and latest iPhone. This has nothing to do with deprivation, despite what the politicians would have us believe.
I often wonder why they bother having them when they pay so little attention to them.

[Mervyn and Trish]

My granddaughter has just started school. As part of her induction her parents were asked if she could count to ten. Their answer was yes, in English, French and German! And actually to 90 in English.

They started just by counting the stairs as soon as she was able to walk up and down them. She just loved learning. You children's brains are like sponges for knowledge.

But isn't it sad they even have to ask? Presumably there are parents who can't be bothered (or are too thick themselves) to teach a child to count to ten. It's not difficult surely.

And grammar schools are not just for the rich and privileged, as some lefties would have us believe. My parents weren't rich. Holidays were at our grandparents homes or in a seaside caravan. My Dad didn't own a car until he was 35 or his own home until he was 45. But I was able to pass my 11 plus so I went.

[Frank Manning]

I have just read our posts on this and Victor Meldrew springs to mind. The sad fact is that we are right.

Sue's cousins all went to Grammar school and their family were as Labour as it's possible to be. Her uncle was a Yorkshire miner, and for all that two of them went to Durham and Oxford Uni's purely through ability. But then Auntie was the sort of woman who engaged with them and encouraged them.

Sue taught both our children to read before they went to school (where they were teaching the initial alphabet for reading). Our two completely threw that system because they could read 'proper'. When poor old Matt was killed he left nearly 600 books behind.

Incidentally we were watching Alan Johnson on TV yesterday, I'd love to have a serious conversation with him.

[Jack Staff]

All this talk of Grammar schools is simply to distract the population from hearing about is(n't) going on regarding the referendum.

[Stephen]

And it's working

Welcome to the forum Jack.

[Jack Staff]

Welcome to the forum Jack.

Thank you!

[Mervyn and Trish]

All this talk of Grammar schools is simply to distract the population from hearing about is(n't) going on regarding the referendum.

Yes welcome Jack.

I presume you mean what's going on, or not, about Brexit. As far as I know nothing is going on about the referendum. We had it, we voted, we democratically chose out and that's the end of it. It's been made clear there will be no second vote.

As far as Brexit is concerned, Theresa May has said publicly she won't conduct the process in public and give away our hand, and she won't trigger the formal process until the end of the year at the earliest. So to be honest I don't expect to hear anything about that beyond speculation and hypothesis.

In the meantime the process of government continues.

[Jack Staff]

All this talk of Grammar schools is simply to distract the population from hearing about is(n't) going on regarding the referendum.

Yes welcome Jack.

I presume you mean what's going on, or not, about Brexit. As far as I know nothing is going on about the referendum. We had it, we voted, we democratically chose out and that's the end of it. It's been made clear there will be no second vote.

As far as Brexit is concerned, Theresa May has said publicly she won't conduct the process in public and give away our hand, and she won't trigger the formal process until the end of the year at the earliest. So to be honest I don't expect to hear anything about that beyond speculation and hypothesis.

In the meantime the process of government continues.

Thank you for the "welcome aboard". It's always nice to be amongst nautical people.
Due to my recent arrival, my posts have to be approved ATM (which is good, stops the land lubbers!). But it means conversation is difficult - I'm not ignoring you.

Yes, we had the vote, so there is no point in revisiting that. We voted out. But out of what exactly? The EU? The free trade area? The £350M a week? Johnny Foreigner coming over here? The Court of Human Rights?

What are we getting/not getting instead? What did we actually vote FOR?

[Silver_Shiney]

I agree with you Frank, forward-facing buggies/prams do not help to forge bonding between children and parents.

[Silver_Shiney]

Thank you for the "welcome aboard". It's always nice to be amongst nautical people.
Due to my recent arrival, my posts have to be approved ATM (which is good, stops the land lubbers!). But it means conversation is difficult - I'm not ignoring you.

Yes, we had the vote, so there is no point in revisiting that. We voted out. But out of what exactly? The EU? The free trade area? The £350M a week? Johnny Foreigner coming over here? The Court of Human Rights?

What are we getting/not getting instead? What did we actually vote FOR?

May I add my welcome to the forum, sir.

Once you get to know us, you'll realise that you made a spelling mistake - we're more naughtycal people ...

My Brexit vote was mainly to get control of our sovereignty back. Unlike some people, mentioning no names but his initials are Nigel Farage, I would have accepted a Remain vote as it would have been the democratic process at work.

What will we be getting? Hopefully, the right to make our own decisions and trade agreements. What are we not getting? Hopefully, foreign interference in the British way of life.

My SIL made an interesting comment today that you may or may not agree with - as King Jimmy took over the kingdom of England, strictly speaking Scotland is the senior member of the "United" Kingdom so, if the Scots do vote again for independence and get it, they are actually ejecting England, Wales and Ulster from the kingdom... Whatever - as long as we can get shot of La Krankie...

[Mervyn and Trish]

All this talk of Grammar schools is simply to distract the population from hearing about is(n't) going on regarding the referendum.

Yes welcome Jack.

I presume you mean what's going on, or not, about Brexit. As far as I know nothing is going on about the referendum. We had it, we voted, we democratically chose out and that's the end of it. It's been made clear there will be no second vote.

As far as Brexit is concerned, Theresa May has said publicly she won't conduct the process in public and give away our hand, and she won't trigger the formal process until the end of the year at the earliest. So to be honest I don't expect to hear anything about that beyond speculation and hypothesis.

In the meantime the process of government continues.

Thank you for the "welcome aboard". It's always nice to be amongst nautical people.
Due to my recent arrival, my posts have to be approved ATM (which is good, stops the land lubbers!). But it means conversation is difficult - I'm not ignoring you.

Yes, we had the vote, so there is no point in revisiting that. We voted out. But out of what exactly? The EU? The free trade area? The £350M a week? Johnny Foreigner coming over here? The Court of Human Rights?

What are we getting/not getting instead? What did we actually vote FOR?

Well the vote as listed on the paper was to leave the EU with all that entails. Different people voted for different reasons I'm sure but I think what the present PM recognises, which her three predecessors didn't, is that a majority of British people want an end to uncontrolled immigration and in particular the freedom of EU nationals to come here to work or claim benefits pretty much without question. So that will likely be the bottom line in the negotiations.

And if we're not in the EU we'd expect to stop paying the membership fee.

What we can get beyond that who knows? If we can get free trade within those red lines I'm sure we'll grab it but it seems clear the rest of the EU won't let us have our cake and eat it. On the other hand can they afford to lose trade with the world's fifth largest economy, particularly as we buy more from them than they from us?

So in short we voted out of the EU full stop, but who knows what our relationship will look like as an independent sovereign nation. And who knows if the EU will even survive so in the long term will that relationship be with the bloc or with other individual countries?


p.s. do you havè any cruising questions? They're an awful lot easier for us old duffers!

[Silver_Shiney]

p.s. do you havè any cruising questions? They're an awful lot easier for us old duffers!

Oy - less of the "old" if you don't mind.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Speaking for myself of course!

[Jack Staff]

May I add my welcome to the forum, sir.

Once you get to know us, you'll realise that you made a spelling mistake - we're more naughtycal people ...

My Brexit vote was mainly to get control of our sovereignty back. Unlike some people, mentioning no names but his initials are Nigel Farage, I would have accepted a Remain vote as it would have been the democratic process at work.

What will we be getting? Hopefully, the right to make our own decisions and trade agreements. What are we not getting? Hopefully, foreign interference in the British way of life.

My SIL made an interesting comment today that you may or may not agree with - as King Jimmy took over the kingdom of England, strictly speaking Scotland is the senior member of the "United" Kingdom so, if the Scots do vote again for independence and get it, they are actually ejecting England, Wales and Ulster from the kingdom... Whatever - as long as we can get shot of La Krankie...

Thank you for the welcome!
Sovereignty - hmmm. Article 50 will need to be triggered by Royal prerogative. Therefore bypassing the sovereignty of the British parliament, don't think that's what you voted for.
We can not make decisions, because it takes two parties. For example, our best hope of a trade deal is Australia. The Aussies will not talk to us until they know our new deal with the EU. Our new deal with the EU will take years after the two years of ripping up the old one. The Aussies are currently negotiating with the EU themselves and will complete this first.

I think your SIL is right. However if NI went with the Scots it would solve all the problems there too. The first minister of Wales is also making noises.
Therefore the simplest and best solution is if England leaves the United Kingdom. The UK can then quite happily carry on in the EU and England gets it's country back (except London, so it can carry on trading in Euros, oh, and Cornwall has realised it will be broke without the EU.) Again, I don't think that's what you voted for!

[Jack Staff]

p.s. do you havè any cruising questions? They're an awful lot easier for us old duffers!

Yes, sorry, I got a bit carried away there!

I need to disappear now from some good old British food. What to have? A curry? Kentucky? Chinese? Kebab? No not a kebab, I haven't drunk enough yet this evening!

[Jack Staff]

Well I guess that killed off the conversation, certainly not my intention.
So to get things back to Grammar schools I'll just leave this here ......
There was a Conservative Education Secretary who closed 403 grammar schools. Her name was Margaret Thatcher. There was another Conservative Education Secretary who said: “The evidence is now incontrovertibly clear that a rigorous academic education does not need to be the preserve of the few.” That was Nicky Morgan, in charge of British education until just two months ago.

[towny44]

Well I guess that killed off the conversation, certainly not my intention.
So to get things back to Grammar schools I'll just leave this here ......
There was a Conservative Education Secretary who closed 403 grammar schools. Her name was Margaret Thatcher. There was another Conservative Education Secretary who said: “The evidence is now incontrovertibly clear that a rigorous academic education does not need to be the preserve of the few.” That was Nicky Morgan, in charge of British education until just two months ago.

My view would be that during the 70's and 80's the idea that comprehensive education was the panacea for curing all the problems in the schools, and the liberal elite would not allow any deviation from this myth, so any education secretary had to toe the line, including Maggie.
I would need to see the evidence that Nicky Morgan was quoting to see how she had managed, or been conned, into accepting such utter rubbish.

[kaymar]

I think you are so Moneysupermarket right Frank. The level of poor parenting in this country is appalling. The first five formative years are so important to a child's education but in too many cases children have been ignored and left to their own devices and are seen as an accessory to accompany their parents' 50" TV, tattoos, manicured nails and latest iPhone. This has nothing to do with deprivation, despite what the politicians would have us believe.
I often wonder why they bother having them when they pay so little attention to them.

And the trouble is, obf, in order to afford these "essentials" in many cases, both parents believe they have to work full time, leaving the child in the care of others during those formative years until he/she starts school and even then, many of them are shunted into after school clubs until a parent has time to collect them. Is it any wonder the poor little souls don't know whether they are coming or going?

[Jack Staff]

I would need to see the evidence .........

It's from a piece on ConservativeHome, though the author might surprise.
We trust our politicians to tell us the truth. Right?

http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... -plan.html

[anniec]

I would need to see the evidence that Nicky Morgan was quoting to see how she had managed, or been conned, into accepting such utter rubbish.

Perhaps she noticed the problems when she was attending her (fee-paying) equivalent of a grammar school?