An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

BobQ

MobileSaver wrote: »

Ah, so only empirical evidence that supports your and Filo25's viewpoint is acceptable, any other empirical evidence is to be disregarded? Thanks for clearing that up, that's a conversation killer... I'm out.

Bogus interpretations based on selective use of statistics is not evicence as Claptons Red Shirt example shows.

BobQ

Filo25 wrote: »

I would have thought it was a pretty simple non-ideological question.

Where is the evidence that a system of secondary moderns plus Grammar schools produces better results on average across all ability ranges, than a system of Comprehensives.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect to see that evidence before thinking that investing funds in more educational "reform", otherwise its just a waste of resources.

Reading this thread it hardly sounds like its only those on the left politically that are being driven by ideology on this issue.

I attended a Grammar myself, as I already said, I am pretty much ideologically indifferent on the matter, I would just want to see us use the system that generally produces the best outcomes for the children being educated, I don't think that's a particularly radical outlook.

Well said. One can perhaps use the analogy of the NHS reforms that were enacted in the past 7 years. Change for change sake on ideological grouds is only jstified if outcomes improve.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

http://www.ces.ed.ac.uk/PDF%20Files/Brief025.pdf

make of it what you will

Thanks. I have seen papers like this before and this does make interesting points. But overall its a little inconclusive. Streaming, setting and mixed ability all have their pros and cons and its unlikely that the perfect system will ever be found.

As you said it comes down to what is the objective. My view is the objective should be to allow all children, whatever their ability, to maximise the opportunities that education provides. Streaming and to a lesser extent setting may indeed have social or unconscious biases but is there much we can do about it? We should of course challenge the decisions made to ensure they can be objectively justified It would also be unfair to reduce the opportunities of able pupils just because it yields a better average outcome to have mixed ability teaching. What matters in my view is that the less able are allowed to maximise the benefit they get from education not how educationally close they are to the most able.

I do think that setting within the same school can more easily ensure that children with different rates of development can be transitioned to a higher ability class where they get the right challenges or vice versa.

But I am not an expert and there are probably many papers like this. Generally I am in favour of trusting the experts rather than the politicians to make the right decisions. Whenever a politician attempts to interfere I assume it is more for their benefit than the children

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Thanks. I have seen papers like this before and this does make interesting points. But overall its a little inconclusive. Streaming, setting and mixed ability all have their pros and cons and its unlikely that the perfect system will ever be found.

As you said it comes down to what is the objective. My view is the objective should be to allow all children, whatever their ability, to maximise the opportunities that education provides.

how would you measure this to ensure your objective was met?

had you considered it might be impossible for all all children to maximise their opportunities and you might need to choose who to favour?

Streaming and to a lesser extent setting may indeed have social or unconscious biases but is there much we can do about it? We should of course challenge the decisions made to ensure they can be objectively justified It would also be unfair to reduce the opportunities of able pupils just because it yields a better average outcome to have mixed ability teaching. What matters in my view is that the less able are allowed to maximise the benefit they get from education not how educationally close they are to the most able.

that sound a little contradictory :

I do think that setting within the same school can more easily ensure that children with different rates of development can be transitioned to a higher ability class where they get the right challenges or vice versa.

but the evidence (from the experts) seems undecided

But I am not an expert and there are probably many papers like this. Generally I am in favour of trusting the experts rather than the politicians to make the right decisions. Whenever a politician attempts to interfere I assume it is more for their benefit than the children

There are NO unbiased experts unless you can define your actually objectives and exactly how they would be measured.
Then of course we can debate the objectives

Moby

Just seen Peter Kyle (the only Labour MP in the South East outside London on Politics show. There is an expose on Momentum, (Dispatches Monday night). It shows a secretly taped meeting in which the chair of his local party, (Brighton) talks openly about his deselection. It comes to something when your own membership hates you more than the tories!

[Deleted User]

I understand that Neil Kinnock has commented that if Corbyn is returned as Leader, he doubts if there will be another Labour Government in his lifetime (he is, I think, 74).

Of course, I would agree with that view given Corbyn's less than stellar prospects of convincing the vital middle ground to vote for him, but to many around here, his opinion is worthless, as they hate Kinnock. Of course they do. He was the Leader who publicly denounced the hard left.

Still it isn't a problem, is it? On a couple of occasions I have asked a certain poster if he really wants Labour to form a government, (which most folk seem to think Corbyn can't do), or if he just wants the left to secure and maintain control of the Labour Party (which Corbyn can do) and to Hell with the electoral consequences, and, unfortunately, the hopes of what used to be a reasonably broad church of Labour supporters.

Kinnock confronted head-on the criticism from the hard left that he was sacrificing party policy and socialist principle in search of electoral success. Power and principle to democratic socialists had to go together, he said.

"We know that power without principles is ruthless, sour, empty, vicious," he said. "We also know that principle without power is idle sterility."

Sterility? Sounds about right!

WR

ruggedtoast

Wild_Rover wrote: »

I understand that Neil Kinnock has commented that if Corbyn is returned as Leader, he doubts if there will be another Labour Government in his lifetime (he is, I think, 74).

Of course, I would agree with that view given Corbyn's less than stellar prospects of convincing the vital middle ground to vote for him, but to many around here, his opinion is worthless, as they hate Kinnock. Of course they do. He was the Leader who publicly denounced the hard left.

Still it isn't a problem, is it? On a couple of occasions I have asked a certain poster if he really wants Labour to form a government, (which most folk seem to think Corbyn can't do), or if he just wants the left to secure and maintain control of the Labour Party (which Corbyn can do) and to Hell with the electoral consequences, and, unfortunately, the hopes of what used to be a reasonably broad church of Labour supporters.

Kinnock confronted head-on the criticism from the hard left that he was sacrificing party policy and socialist principle in search of electoral success. Power and principle to democratic socialists had to go together, he said.

"We know that power without principles is ruthless, sour, empty, vicious," he said. "We also know that principle without power is idle sterility."

Sterility? Sounds about right!

WR

I'm afraid we Corbynites aren't overly exercised about the opinions of fossilised old Blairites like Neil Kinnock.

Meanwhile, with Corbyn's mostly unanswered mauling of May at the despatch box, and her own faction of swivel eyed europhobes ready to storm the castle with pitchforks unless they get a return to 1950, it's a terrible time for the Tories.

Jeremy is seeing off every single political enemy with staying power and grit.

mwpt

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm afraid we Corbynites aren't overly exercised about the opinions of fossilised old Blairites like Neil Kinnock.

Meanwhile, with Corbyn's mostly unanswered mauling of May at the despatch box, and her own faction of swivel eyed europhobes ready to storm the castle with pitchforks unless they get a return to 1950, it's a terrible time for the Tories.

Jeremy is seeing off every single political enemy with staying power and grit.

Yes, he is.

But he will never be elected. So in the meantime, I'm left with no-one realistic to vote for to oppose a party I currently have no wish to be governing me (Tories).

ruggedtoast

mwpt wrote: »

Yes, he is.

But he will never be elected. So in the meantime, I'm left with no-one realistic to vote for to oppose a party I currently have no wish to be governing me (Tories).

You will come round.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You will come round.

presumably that is after the disgusting McDonnell sends his lads round with a few bricks.