to ask would you send your eldest Dc to a grammar school?

[var12]

Hypothetical question... if there were grammar schools in your area and your DC1 was offered a place, would you accept it?

"It is vital that spending on education is not wasted: money needs to be allocated strategically to get the best return on investment. This might be at odds with some people's ideas of fairness."

What do you mean?

I mean that when you reduce selection, education is less well targeted.

If the education budget is being stretched why did they put the leaving age up to 18 and force 16 year olds to continue in going to an environment that is stifling to some.

DD would prefer to be out working. She has several part time jobs that she wants to develop but is forced to spend the next 2 years going to a college that we know when she needs time off to go working will be a bit reluctant if it interferes with the termly shows

Do kids have to stay in education until 18 now even if they don't want to? I was not aware of that. That's totally bonkers!

Oliversmumsarmy - because the welfare budget is also overstretched - even more so than the education budget, which it dwarfs - and the govt want to keep unemployment figures as low as possible.

Education is not less well targeted when you reduce selection.

It is vital that spending on education is not wasted: money needs to be allocated strategically to get the best return on investment. This might be at odds with some people's ideas of fairness."

Actually means: " My kids deserve it more."

Do you have kids smallfox?

You are strangely lacking in understanding of detail for someone who claims to be an economist, smallfox.

Of course. But I don't see why having kids is relevant in a debate about government education policy.

Unless your going to do the "You can't understand if you don't have kids" bit, which is another flawed argument.

When you have DC and are faced with very real economic trade-offs and multiple complex variables to ensure they get a god education, it's quite easy, IMO, to identify where state spending wastes money by offering an undifferentiated "fair" school diet...

good

What school offers undifferentiated education?

Still bobo you are meaning that you support the status quo because it works in your advantage, it isn't a viable argument.

I think it's relevant as you don't seem to understand that the vast majority of parents care first and foremost about their own children's education over what is good for society as a whole.

Or rather you do understand that's the case perhaps but you don't understand why

Yeah but "me first" isn't a justification for government policy is it?

Actually it probably is for the Conservatives.

You're right it isn't a justification but it's what people will always support, even if they claim otherwise, especially when it comes to opportunities for their children.

And I actually support the grammar system even though it won't affect my kids directly as I use the private system. I do think there should be opportunity to move between schools after 11 though as some children do blossom later. I also think we need more respect for the trades like there is in other European countries. It is not a failure to become a skilled tradesman if you aren't academically minded. Not everyone is suited to being a brain surgeon etc

So then isn't it down to a government to make proper policies then rather than pander to the prejudices of its core vote?

But "pander to the prejudices of its core vote" actually means "give the majority of the voting public what they actually want" doesn't it? In some ways I do agree with you but people will never support something that impacts negatively on their children.

Or they they perceive will impact negatively on their children

THAT they perceive not they they!

There is no doubt that elected politicians are short termist, and not even 5 year horizon short termist, but often what is politically expedient this week.

Just like with teachers though, you shouldn't blame the people operating within the system, you need to blame the system. I'm not that keen though to give up a system whereby we elect our political leaders though, and I doubt many other people would be willing to contemplate that either. So, we are stuck with the consequence - short term, populist policies.

Here we are talking about changes to the school system which should help some but will it damage others? I can see how being made to feel a failure is damaging, although life is a bit like that, isn't it? Else I'd have got that job I wanted a few months ago. What I can't see is why the teaching, which is aimed at the middle and the c/d boundaries need change just because DS and others like him aren't in the classroom any more?

But grammar schools impact negatively on MOST children, and they are repeatedly proved to serve communities and students who are the most likely to have had had successful outcomes anyway.

Perception is not reality.

Also if there are entry conditions where PP students ( for example) get 20% and some priority placing, there will a great wailing and gnashing of teeth among those who have perceived that their children should be getting in.

Its divisive and a sop to the Tory vote who long for the land of lost content of the 1950's, without actually applying any of the dynamic social policy that the post war consensus brought about.

Shouldn't we just improve the provision at secondary moderns though? Why can't they be great schools like their equivalents in Europe?