To think that being Tory doesn't make you thick?

[RainbowSheep]

Ok, my family are all very liberal (I mean my parents, aunts & uncles, who incidently have all had lots of money & opportunities throughout their lives). Their parents (who were poor working class) were more conservative as are me and my brother, who are both pretty poor. We recently had a family get together where I was told by my uncle (university lecturer) that Tories were unitelligent and I was beginning to sound like an idiot for having conservative views... I don't think I am particularly right wing.

I think there should many more state specialist schools to provide what fee-paying schools like the Sylvia Young Theatre School provide.

I don't see why state school children should be at a disadvantage to parents who can afford to pay for their children to go to these specialist schools.
That's why I like the idea of these specialist academies etc.

Right, yes. So, as I say - you put children with talents into highly specialised environments, and those with no particular talent in another school which will apparently also be excellent. What 'choice' will those children have?

Yes, but the other school is not rubbish, it is just not specialist like the Sylvia Young Theatre School. It is more generalist.

I don't think that one model of school can meet all of the possible specialisms that state school children may want to choose. I think that lots of pupils from the Sylvia Young school end up as successful actors and singers etc., and I can't see why the state can't provide the same opportunities to children whose parents can't afford the fees.

ths system you are describing with much more like the German system where there is high quality schooling for less acedemic children.

yes, TheRealTillyMinto, it may be more like the German system.

Schools, schmools.

11 is ludicrously early to decide anything about a child's future. Children should be educated the same, in their local schools, until 14, at which age they and their families should have lengthy discussions about future career directions and they can then start to specialise to a vocational / academic / artistic / military / whatever direction.

Private schools should be nationalised. They should be made illegal and all MPs children should have to live in Tottenham for at least 2 years to ensure that the state system is performing its duties.

I agree, housewife - I grew up in the Netherlands where you were more or less placed in a school on the vocational to academic range when you were 11 - but it was possible to move streams. Basically if you were in a school that took you to GCSE level you could then move onto the Dutch equivalent of AS-level - you'd have to repeat the 4th year of secondary (but at the higher level, then do exams in the 5th year. So you'd be 18, your peers who had gone straight through would be 17. You could then do the same thing again and do the equivalent of A-levels, and you'd be 20 by the time you were done instead of 18. It's laborious, but it gets you to where you're going and you aren't written off at 11.

The UK badly needs high quality vocational education, and we need to start valuing skills as well as academia.

I don't agree with making private schools illegal though - make no mistake, I don't like the idea of private schools, they don't exist in Holland except in very small specialised instances, but I would much rather they were simply made redundant through a very good state system.

I do agree that anyone wanting to be an MP should have held down a real job (not a Daddy's-Eton'-Contacts-Got-Me-Into-PR-And_Politics job) for at least 5 years.

Claig anyone thinking that the current grammar school system works is not thinking clearly. It's not a meritocracy, it is about people who can afford to pay for tutors getting borderline children through the exams at the expense of bright children whose parents can't afford tutoring.

The dutch system sounds good - is it still like that? I remember going on a school exchange to Holland and I was amazed at how the teachers were respected and looked really cool and with-it. Whereas in the UK they were either Miss Jean Brody or Mr Open University.

The UK's education system reflects its attitude to banking - a free-for-all - grab what you can.

HuntyCat is a total twat. HuntyCat believed Shiney Dave and his lies about how he would not cut benefits for the disabled. HuntyCat voted Tory. And will NEVER make that mistake again. HuntyCat has made much more of an effort to become MUCH more educated about the history of politics since the election.

pretendhousewife Yes, it is still like that, though the criteria have tightened up as to who is allowed to move upwards. You have to get pretty good marks, as obviously the work on each next tier is much harder, and if you have repeated a year at the lowest level you are not allowed to repeat a year at the higher level - fail, and you're toast. If you have never repeated a year you are allowed to do so.

I just think it allows late developers to blossom when they're ready to.

Hunty you are not a twat, you fell for the PR spin. Lots of people did. I haven't naturalised so don't have a vote in General Elections in the UK, but I'm old enough to remember the Thatcher years, but it's different if you haven't lived through it.

Take the dunce cap off and have a .

Pointy - I will HAVE to disagree with you on the Grammar school thing. Children from state schools DO get into the super-selective Grammar in my town. And it takes children from the whole County. And I know of two dc from my DS1's primary that were accepted in the last 2 years that had no formal tutoring. One who was in receipt of FSM's.

HuntyCat I am glad to see that it is working somewhere. I just see so many tutoring threads on here and elsewhere that I wonder what the point of grammar schools is. It's a knotty problem though - how do you identify potential? I just wish there were points of entry to grammar school at later ages too.

Agree Pointy, it is not a real meritocracy, but it is as good as we have got. I have read that one of Hunty's DS's is very clever and is going for the 11 plus exam. That is great and I hope he gets in because I am sure he is cleverer than a lot of children who are better off financially. At least that gives him the chance to get into one of the top schools in the whole country.

Hunty, I didn't realise you had voted Tory. I think, like you do now, that you made the wrong decision for yourself, but it's no consolation that I think you made the right choice for the country.

Gove is going to allow grammar schools to expand, so it sounds like more places will be available and maybe at later ages too.

The thing is, claig, I don't feel like I made the right decision for the country. It wasn't the right decision to vote for someone who blatantly lied during his election campaign, and is cutting support for disabled dc despite promising not to. IMO that is the wrong thing for the country.

Yes, I agree about that. But some other things he is doing are good for the whole country. If they manage to turn the economy round in a few years' time and if world events don't put a spanner in the works, then things wil start to get better.

But claig going into a situation of world uncertainty without a plan B just isn't smart. 12 months ago the talk was all about how the private sector resurgence would pick up the slack from the public sector job cuts (and although I am a public sector worker I agree that there is a lot of cutting to be done there, especially in middle management).

But due to all the other austerity, people haven't got money to spend to stimulate the private sector, the public sector job cuts are going faster and deeper than expected and unemployment is spiralling. It's all very well for Osborne to blame the European crisis, but by now some responsibility has to lie with him. When I plan a holiday, or anything at all, I always have a plan B, because life likes to bite you on the bum when you least expect it. It's irresponsible not to have a plan B when you're running the economy of an entire country. I wonder if Osborne is a parent - I suspect he is not, otherwise plan B would have been in the nappy bag along with the spare clothes, wipes and other useful things.

This thread has become completely derailed, hasn't it? I'm glad - we now seem to be into healthy political debate instead of name calling.

But if people with disabilities have a shit life, or get hypothermia because they can't afford to heat their homes, it doesn't matter, because in a few years, when the economy gets better, it'll be OK?

Not everyone is ABLE to ride out the bad times without the support they need being in place. The economy being turned round and life being better for the top 1% the majority of people isn't going to matter to THAT person with disabilities if they are dead by then, is it??

And even your plan B doesn't always work. My own personal plan B was to have insurances that were meant to support me if I was unable to work for any reason, and having £20K of savings. My insurance didn't pay out, and £20k doesn't go too far, or last that long...

Yes, this is real political debate and is much better.

I think Osborne has got a plan B, I think he is going to start a lot of public works to create jobs. Plans are all very well, but they are often swept away by the tide of events. I think what is really needed is adaptability to changing circumstances. I hope Osborne has got that. He is not on his own, he will have lots of advisers giving him alternatives and he will choose the one he thinks is best.

He has kept interest rates low by not borrowing too much now and has gained the confidence of the markets. Thiis has built up his store of credit with the markets, which means that he will be able to ease up on the austerity.

If nothing he does works, then I think he will change course. But I think he still needs to be given time now.

But what of those people who CAN'T wait, claig? What should happen to them?

Yes, plans look good on paper, but are often out of date as soon as they are drawn up. What really counts is thinking on one's feet and adapting to changing circumstances. Let's hope he has those qualities.

Good point, HuntyCat. I hope that some of the rhetoric is just that, to sound tough.

Unfortunately not, claig. The welfare reform bill is already being passed in the House of Lords. It's not just sounding tough when you are taking £1,400 a year away from children who can have quite severe disabilities, profound learning difficulties etc. And the reason they will lose this money? Because they sleep at night.

So one child, profound LD, sleeps 11pm-6am - Loses £1,400 a year.
Another child, profound LD, sleeps 11pm-2am, 3am-5am, doesn't lose £1,400 a year.

Is that justifiable, even IF the country has 'no money left'?

Surely it is a mark of a civilised Society that it provides for those that can't provide for themselves? I don't think this policy, soon to become law, does.

I agree with you. How can they prove if a child sleeps throughout the entire night, every night?