*All* working class pupils are disadvantaged by the bog-standard comps Mr Lammy’s Labour Party has imposed on them since it was taken over by well-off bourgeois bohemians in the 1960s. Don’t think he was referring to them.
4. Your dismissive intolerance of differing opinions, and angry (ill-informed) denunciation of them, does not do much for the image of the organisation with which you are associated. Shouldn't teaching encourage open-mindedness?
35.6% and 40% are comparable, and indeed 'roughly the same'. Kent, as you know, has many very poor areas. You are avoiding the actual point, which is that London *is* different and it not because it has comprehensive schools.
1. Who said that?. You could hire a thousand brilliant builders to build a housing estate, but if you equipped them with spoons instead of spades, and shackled their feet, they'd still fail. That's what the 'comprehensive' system does to teachers and pupils alike.
Measured by what objective standard? I don't notice academically selective Germany and Switzerland failing economically and socially, as we do. I'm also struck by the reintroduction of academic selection to former (comprehensive and failed) East Germany - by popular demand.
I'm not sure what 12% increase you are referring to. Lots of places apart from Kent are below national average, and have comprehensive schools. Which is my point. Kent is a county with many pockets of severe poverty and deprivation.
Well, it's a good way of making 4.4% look bigger, I'll grant you that . But it doesn't alter the point that Kent's outcome in this matter has more to do with its poverty than with its education system. And that the London effect is not caused by its educational system., either.