Jottings from Tooting

Did interview with World at One. Turned down Simon Mayo. Journalists arrived en masse by tube. Lots of jokes that this would be the most important Conservative speech ever... in Tooting. Will Woodward of The Guardian was unimpressed at me listening to James Blunt on my iPod. Sam then showed him around his Facebook account. Had a pleasant chat with Melissa Kite. Agreed to meet her for reconciliation lunch. Took call from Newsnight. Sat with Telegraph's Brendan Carlin. Lots of young people present. Tree logos everywhere.  Started 15 minutes late.

Francis Maude chaired the event.  Local candidate Mark Clarke speaks first and says that men with ten earrings are now joining party. Recruitment for one Conservative Future branch apparently increased 1000% when a Union Flag was replaced with a banner promise on global poverty. Sutton and Cheam PPC Philippa Stroud says policy review process is thorough and serious about helping most disadvantaged. Grant Schapps says Tories are winning again because they are real community champions. Michael Gove says change was necessary after three big defeats. Clintonian promise from Gove to never stop thinking about tomorrow. Sniggers from journalists. Frenetic scribbling on notepad by Quentin Letts.

David Cameron delivered the text you could read on ConservativeHome last night. He wore a purple tie. Then took questions. Activist called for emphasis on science in every policy. DC mentions Ian Taylor's science taskforce. Michael Crick asks about grammar streams. What if people don't want these streams? Cameron says streaming is good for children but parents could reject it. Lots of applause. Winston Mackenzie announces himself as leading Tory candidate for London Mayor. DC answers his question on crime amongst black youths. Attacks gangsta rap lyrics. One questioner asked what exactly is social responsibilty? Cameron says it's about pubs not selling alcohol to kids, neighbours looking out for each other, business acting against crime. Gary Gibbon quotes a new Channel 4 poll showing that Tories are seen as twice as far to right as Labour is to the left. Cameron says look at the candidates that the party is selecting. Look at the NHS and green campaigns being run by local Associations. The party is changing.

Comments

[malcolm]

Who is Gary Gibbon? You might want to look at the sentence again that mentions Ian Taylor, it doesn't make sense.
Interested to know whether you thought the meeting positive or negative both from DC, his entourage anhd the assorted scribes.
PS I'm also interested to know why you turned Simon Mayo down for the World At One. I suspect( although I'm not sure) Mayo attracts a much bigger audience of the politically uncommited.

[TomTom]

Michael Crick asks about grammar streams. What if people don't want these streams? Cameron says streaming is good for children but parents could reject it.

So streaming will vary from year to year, subject to subject, school to school, as parents are balloted on it ?

Good job teachers are resigned to being messed around by politicians.....

[Sean Fear]

Can't say I'm very enthusiastic about replacing the Union Flag with some banner about global poverty.

[Alex Swanson]

Cameron says streaming is good for children but parents could reject it.

That's the point, isn't it really. You can have anything you like provided it's never been pre-Cameron Tory policy.

And I still haven't had a good answer on why, if he's big into trusting people, he can't allow HIS OWN ACTIVISTS to select prospective MPs without interference.

[Jon Gale]

TomTom
Good job teachers are resigned to being messed around by politicians."

Alex Swanson
...You can have anything you like provided it's never been pre-Cameron Tory policy

And if he'd said it was compulsory you could attack him for being against choice/being statist.

Hey, its easy this refexive head-banging lark, isn't it?

[Editor]

Thanks Malcolm. I've corrected the Ian Taylor quote. Gary Gibbon is Political Editor of Channel 4. I did Wato because it was a three minute pre-record rather than a 45 minute slot.

[bluepatriot]

I was at the event. David Cameron came over very well. Any normal voter will see him as a decent, moderate man. He's exactly the sort of person that will reestablish our party's appeal in Middle England.

[malcolm]

Thanks Tim. I should've guessed about Gary Gibbon, Channel 4 news makes the BBC news seem balanced.

[Derek]

"Local candidate Mark Clarke speaks first and says that men with ten earrings are now joining party. Recruitment for one Conservative Future branch apparently increased 1000% when a Union Flag was replaced with a banner promise on global poverty." - But what about those with no earrings who are proud of the Union Flag? -Where are they to go?

[Editor]

True Malcolm re Channel 4 but Gary Gibbon is a fair reporter.

[TomTom]

And if he'd said it was compulsory you could attack him for being against choice/being statist.

Hey, its easy this refexive head-banging lark, isn't it?

Posted by: Jon Gale | June 18, 2007 at 15:25

Stop thinking in slogans !

Just think how a Comprehensive School can stream and set with pupils opting out. How do you run a school where pupils simply opt out of lessons ?

This is yet another flaky policy U-Turn. Michael Crick must have been grinning from ear-to-ear

[Alex Swanson]

And if he'd said it was compulsory you could attack him for being against choice/being statist.

I am not attacking him for being for or against choice. I am attacking him for being inconsistent.

I loathe this government as much as anybody. I would love to see a strong, principled, pro-liberty, pro-democracy and intellectually coherent potential replacement. So far this isn't.

Hey, its easy this refexive head-banging lark, isn't it?

Hey, it's easy this reflexive abuse lark, isn't it?

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

Very good stuff from everyone at the event by the sounds of it and even more reason why the Conservatives are so correct to move back onto the centre ground where we have always won from previously.

[James Cleverly]

The point about opting out needs to be seen in relation to the question.

Crick asked what would the Conservatives do if a school was started (under local autonomy) that rejected setting and streaming. DC said that he thought that setting and streaming were good but if a school wanted to opt out and compete against the other local schools on that level then they could.

[John Moss]

Tom Tom, Just think how a Comprehensive School can stream and set with pupils opting out. How do you run a school where pupils simply opt out of lessons?

Vouchers. Then those parents who don't like setting/streaming etc can set up their own schools.

[Captain Sensible]

Crick asks about grammar streams. What if people don't want these streams? Cameron says streaming is good for children but parents could reject it. Lots of applause.

Sorry - fell asleep for a moment. Are we in favour of setting/streaming/comprehensives this week or not?

[Chris]

John Moss,
Vouchers aren't part of the policy yet, they are an eventual aim. The idea is that a whole school can opt out of setting and streaming (parental control through governors) and that parents can chose to send their children to non set schools.

[Adam Tugwell]

This streaming idea is as potentially as destructive as walking away from Grammars. DC acknowledges that different educational settings need to exist but seems to want the luxury of mixing it all together.

Streaming is potentially devisive as it rather rams it down a child's neck that someone else is better than they are or alternatively not so good. This is not a plan which will result in empowerment.

Isn't it about time that diversity was encouraged in education and openly regarded as such? Everyone is different; why not play to their strengths for a change?

[Londoner]

James Cleverly makes it very clear what was meant in response to the Crick question on streaming.

As for Adam Tugwell, I am amazed that anyone is against streaming as the natural and usual method in any school, certainly secondaries from 11 but probably in many subjects well before that. Just look at the private sector - there is lots of demand for schools that stream (i.e. they virtually all do) and parents are very happy about that, whatever stream their child is in in any particular subject in any particular year. If it didn't work, and there was not the demand for it, the private sector would not do it. Of course you could say the same about selection, but that is rather less "open and shut" as private schools have no obligation to think of the effects on the children whom that particular school does not let in.

Maybe I need to read your version of the speech, but from the account in this morning's Telegraph, most of this speech seemed somewhere between platitudinous and repetition. Is it really about trying to regain control of the mood music? It's certainly lucky that it looks like overshadowing the foolish remarks about museums over the week-end.

[Chelloveck]

LOL. 'Tooting' is slang for snorting cocaine.

[TomTom]

but if a school wanted to opt out and compete against the other local schools on that level then they could.

Posted by: James Cleverly | June 18, 2007 at 17:03

So the taxpayer spends £30 million building a school and some parents decide they don't want streaming. other parents refuse to send their children there and demand another school be built for another £30 million

The first school finds it is only 40% full and the second school is 120% full......so we expand the second school with another £5 million extension......

Who is going to fund this approach to multiple schools and staffing ?

[TomTom]

I am amazed that anyone is against streaming as the natural and usual method in any school,

Teachers are against it.

Arguments for selection, streaming and banding

1. Certain subjects are “hard” and would be impossible to teach successfully in a mixed ability environment
2. The needs of the majority are met in setted groups – differentiation is easier to achieve and prove.
3. Children are different and require different approaches. Some children are academically gifted and require specialist help; others require a more basic skills approach.
4. Mixed ability grouping holds the best students back

Arguments against selection, streaming and banding

1. Setting is only easier for teachers but has no measurable, provable benefit for students at either end.
2. Teacher “labels” become self fulfilling prophecies. Top sets are expected to perform better and do, bottom sets are expected to perform badly and often to behave badly and do so.
3. There is a predominance of working class children in bottom sets and non-selective schools who therefore do not can access to “higher” academic knowledge and skills. Selection, streaming, banding and setting therefore perpetuate the existing class structure and limit the opportunities of working class children
4. Equal opportunities issues (see point 3)
5. Teacher’s low expectations of bottom sets and secondary modern pupils result in less preparation and effort on the part of the teacher.
6. Mixed ability groups in comprehensive schools are important in the social development of children and the progressive development of society
7. IQ testing is outmoded and discredited and a totally unfair way to determine a child’s future and prospects
8. Selection and streaming is deeply damaging to a child’s self esteem

http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=1289

for the last three years I have been teaching in an inner city boys comprehensive where setting is used. I have subsequently changed my view and feel that setting is appropriate for the school that I am in. I am even considering introducing setting for the two GCSE classes that start next year. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) The intake of pupils in my school is vast; we have over 50 community languages and have over 90 feeder primary schools and boys from both middle and working class backgrounds. As a consequence we have boys arriving at the schol with a vast difference in their baseline education - ranging from students who literally do not have any spoken English, to those who have had no formal education as a result of wars in their home lands, to those who arrived with levels 5 and 6 in their KS2 Sats. Mixed ability would not work in this case.

2) Within each set there is still a vast ability range, therefore I am still efectively having to differentiate as if I was teaching a mixed ability class. For example in my top set year 8 I have students who range from level 4 to level 7.

3) At GCSE I currently teach in mixed ability classes and as a consequence am teaching boys who will struggle to get a G in the same class as those who hopefully will get an A. Now I firmly believe that I am teaching them to the best of my ability and I do get great support from an SEN teacher, but I am not sure if I can benefit the whole class as much as if I separated them into effectively a Higher and a Foundation class.

My opinion based on personal experiences:

For setting:

1. You can target specific academic problems more easily with smaller classes.
2. There is a safe and nurturing environment for less able students to practice basics like reading out loud.
3. Differentiation is easier.
4. You can give lessons that will enhance their understanding rather than their levels.

Against setting:

1. The girls feel the stigma of being in less able classes.
2. The same weight of expectation is placed on them by their parents even when in foundation classes.
3. They play up to their SEN reputation.
4. Some more able students slow down their learning process out of fear of changing groups.
5. Teachers enter the classroom feeling that they are in for a tug of war!
6. SEN and setted classes often feel that it is ok to behave badly!
7. More able classes are left feeling superior - unconsciously or subconsciously!

Question for those who see some form of selection/streaming as desirable or a "necessary evil" -
Why is it that working class kids and ethnic minority kids are over represented in bottom sets and in secondary modern schools? Are they by nature less intelligent or are the systems we use, (based as they are on the ideology of the Tripartite system) doing them a grave injustice??

Are we, consciously or otherwise, teaching, recognising and encouraging white middle class values/attitudes over all others?

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Streaming is not divisive, children are better at some things than others, this just follows on from that.

This sounds like a good speech and he came across well on the news just then. Compared to Brown and his lugubrious control-freakery, there really is no contest.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Sorry, I meant to refer to setting, not streaming. Individual strengths rather than overall strength.

[Richard]

Decentralising power and choices means that those who make the wrong choices must be able to suffer the consequences of their decisions. Is Cameron brave enough to state this clearly?

[Graeme Archer]

C4 news is biased, but I don't pay for it, and it doesn't talk to me like I'm a fool. Hence C4 wins every night in Archer-Pannell Towers.

[Jennifer Wells]

"Your Society, Your Life"?

Whoever wrote that line should be shot.

It sounds like an advertising slogan for a building society.

[Graeme Archer]

(last comment was @Malcolm, by the way!)

I'm sure today's event was as good as it sounds. Michael Crick asks about grammar streams and parents not wanting them; what about licence-payers not wanting a tosspot like Crick being in charge of politics on Newsnight? Actually it helps DC to be attacked on this because it's such a sensible, popular policy. Every time parents see BBC1's 'news' programme with a true member of the establishment elite (Crick) sneering at Cameron it will help get the point across: we're the party of banding withing schools. Good. Pace Conservative"Home", most Tories and most people like this policy.

[Bill]

Setting and streaming meant the same thing when I was at school. But that was back in the 80s.

[Graeme Archer]

I think it's Our Society, Your Life, Jennifer. Which is a pretty good strapline for social responsibility: your decisions, yes, but your decisions have an impact on me, so at the least I have the right to comment on your behaviour (Jennifer I mean the impersonal 'you', not 'you' directly!). For the LIFE of me I cannot understand what the problem with 'social responsibility' is for social conservatives; ought it not to be liberals like myself who worry about it? Or has Cameron, with social responsibility, found the glue to bind contract-liberals to social-authoritarians? I suppose Andrew Sullivan will write a book about it in a while but it feels good enough to me just now.

[Graeme Archer]

Ah Bill. We are the same generation. We were streamed relentlessly from day 1 at Primary (going back to the 70s here though). "And it never did me any harm" (well, that's what I tell myself ... ).

[Bill]

Graeme I am not fond of Crick and I recognise the new establishment concept. However I do not think that view would have much traction with a wider audience. Crick of course went to Manchester Grammar School before Oxford. I very much doubt if he was a member of the Bullingdon unlike OE Call Me Dave.

[TomTom]

C4 news is biased, but I don't pay for it

Oh yes you do - every time you shop - it is costed into your grocery bill.....and as a taxpayer you give them free spectrum while ITV pays a spectrum tax

I very much doubt if he was a member of the Bullingdon unlike OE Call Me Dave.

He was not and was if I recall President of the Labour Club, editor of Cherwell, and Prez of the Onion

[Josh]

Setting within schools is a far superior option to segregation by schools (Grammar schools etc).

1) Within a school, it is possible to reset so if a pupil starts off struggling but picks up, he can be moved up.

2) You differentiate between subjects. At my school, we had students in the top set for Maths and the bottom set for English. Grammar schools/secondary moderns are one size fits all for the student. You must either be bright or stupid at every subject.

3) Mixing pupils of different abilities within the schools allows the possibility for the bright ones to help the stupid ones outside the class while being able to be educated to their full potential witihn class. That was frequently the case at my school.

[Simon Newman]

TomTom:
"Why is it that working class kids and ethnic minority kids are over represented in bottom sets and in secondary modern schools? Are they by nature less intelligent or are the systems we use, (based as they are on the ideology of the Tripartite system) doing them a grave injustice??"

Probably both, but if you're interested in facts read The Bell Curve by Murray & Hernstein.

[Matt Wright]

Agree with Josh, setting in schools is the better option,

Matt

[William MacDougall]

Is this another u-turn: Cameron says streaming is good for children but parents could reject it. So we have gone from "Grammar streaming" in every school, to it's being an option for schools, with parents able to choose schools that don't have it if they prefer? Is that what he meant?

On top of the earlier education u-turn: from no new grammar schools to new grammar schools permitted, but only if you are lucky enough to live in an area that already has them and which has a growing population.

How about a much more important u-turn (or would it be a "round-about", a return to the 2001 policy): permitting schools everywhere to select, and parents able to choose schools which specialise by ability range, as well as those that don't? Please!

[TomTom]

TomTom:
"Why is it that working class kids and ethnic minority kids are over represented in bottom sets and in secondary modern schools? Are they by nature less intelligent or are the systems we use, (based as they are on the ideology of the Tripartite system) doing them a grave injustice??"

Probably both, but if you're interested in facts read The Bell Curve by Murray & Hernstein.

Posted by: Simon Newman | June 18, 2007 at 23:39

I have The Bell Curve...but I recommend you read the thread properly. The comments were from a Teachers Website and not mine......

[Traditional Tory]

Local candidate Mark Clarke speaks first and says that men with ten earrings are now joining party. Recruitment for one Conservative Future branch apparently increased 1000% when a Union Flag was replaced with a banner promise on global poverty.

Presumably this was intended as a friendly (?) send-up of Dave's 'changed party' fantasy.

Knockabout warm up speech?

Be that as it may, Mr Clarke has put his foot right in it. These quotes are going to join 'Heir to Blair', 'Hug-a-hoodie' 'Grammargate', and all the other weapons in the verbal armoury of the Antiroons.

Incidentally Rachel Sylvester's piece in today's Telegraph confirms her steady move from enthusiasm to scepticism. She also confirms the existence of the 'Save Dave' campaign, unveiled over the weekend.

[Londoner]

Sorry - yesterday I meant setting being obviously right, not streaming. An important point about setting is that in a year group of any size most pupils will be good enough in one subject area or the other so they are not in the bottom set for everything.

So if Adam Tugwell, and the reported view of teachers, is against streaming rather than setting I do not have any great quarrel with them.

I do not suggest that IQ tests are used as the basis for setting, but rather the actual attainment and speed of progress. Regarding the "working class" issue etc quoted (?) by TomTom, one has to whisper it but intelligence is to a material extent genetic and intelligent parents tend to end up doing middle class jobs. But there are always genetic outriders (is that the right term, my Maths with Stats A level was done a long time ago!) and so there will be some working class children in high sets. So it is important that teachers don't pre-judge setting on anything other than attained achievement - the able working class children, even if put in low sets at first, will naturally move up the sets as time goes on if they have the ability.

I am not surprised that TomTom has confused us about which parts of his post are his own views, and which quoting from elsewhere, because I have looked at it again and am far from sure.

[TomTOm]

I am not surprised that TomTom has confused us about which parts of his post are his own views

Funny that....since I believe in Grammar Schools and Technical Schools and wish to see Comprehensive Schools and PFI Academies expunged from the face of the earth.....you might gather I don't care much what State School teachers think or for the whole National Education Service which swallows the entire VAT revenues of the nation.

You can set and stream within selective schools but it is impossible in State Schools because a) they are non-selective and b) the LSC controls all Post-16 Education and is sending children to CFEs