Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

.....our actions resonate in others, since we get so much from society that society should have a say in those actions.....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, but only insofar as our actions have a direct adverse effect on others. It's nothing to do with being right or left wing - it's called libertarianism.

Having said that, many on the left do struggle with any concepts involving liberty for anyone other than them. [;)]

YoungGreyBeard · May 2007

The question is not so much about being in favour of Grammar Schools which only educate quite a small proportion of children in LEAs that still have them, rather its about being in favour of Secondary Moderns (or High Schools or whatever rebranding is in use).

That's the reason that the Conservatives did not re-introduce them at the height of their power - too many losers i.e. 80%+ of children would go to Secondary Moderns.

As for private schools, why shouldn't parents spend their money in this way if they wish? The question is rather should these schools have to pass a more stringent "public good" test in order to be able to claim the advantages of charity status.

Perhaps we should just accept that we as a nation need to spend a great deal more on education to get the results we need for the future.

Afterall today's school children will be generating the wealth that pays our pensions!

ankev1 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by YoungGreyBeard

That's the reason that the Conservatives did not re-introduce them at the height of their power - too many losers i.e. 80%+ of children would go to Secondary Moderns.

Perhaps we should just accept that we as a nation need to spend a great deal more on education to get the results we need for the future.

Afterall today's school children will be generating the wealth that pays our pensions!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think the highlighted bit is a common perception which isn't quite accurate. The grammar schools were for the brightest kids and were essentially training places for aspirant undergraduates. In establishing them the state had efficiently taken care of that end of the spectrum. The sec mod kids weren't "failures" because they didn't get to grammar school, it was rather the sec mods themselves which were failures because they didn't seem to offer too much to their pupils. Doing away with the grammar schools was detrimental to the kids who were capable of attending them and did nothing whatsoever for the sec mod kids who carried on being ill served by the comps.

IMO we should reintroduce grammar schools for glaringly obvious reasons but we should also be as seriously committed to offering high quality education at the right level for the less academically inclined kids. This is what was lacking in the past and the comps are still lacking it now.

Ref FM's voucher idea. Seems reasonable to me. Maybe all kids should attend the same level of first year secondary education and after the teachers have been able to have a good luck at them, as opposed to the one shot of the 11+, they could then be allocated to the right level of school for them. This would kill two controversial birds with one stone: firstly it would guarantee equality of opportunity across the board and secondly any perceived unfair advantage gained by parents paying for cramming lessons would be seen through during the course of a year and so no advantage would accrue.

Canrider · May 2007

Now you're talking ankev. All I need to do is convince you to allow kids to move freely between school levels (or even take modules split between the different levels) and we'll be set!

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

ankev1 · May 2007

Hmmm, don't get too optimistic, I would still like to see separate schools based on academic ability. That said, it does occur to me that the kids with real difficulties, be they social, academic or whatever should get a lot of high quality education thrown at them in their schools so that they are not just abandoned by the system.

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Your reasoning is somewhat faulty here, so excuse me if I continue to be a little patronising, but for a very good reason.

There are three separate groups of questions here, if you want to understand this proposal:

1. Why might it be a good thing to constrain what schools can charge to the same amount as the 'voucher'? And why might it be a bad idea not to do so?

2. What does this mean for private schools? Does it mean they would vanish? If not, what would happen?

3. Why does this not limit parents' spending on education for their children (as if you could do such a thing even if you wanted to...)?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sorry, but posing your own questions about your own proposal doesn't answer mine! And no matter how you try to restate what your proposal means, you have still previously accepted that your proposal involved a restriction on individual choice, so how about explaining why it is justified? Answers to your own questions above would be helpful!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
And I agree with Gary BTW, that there is no default in individual consumer rights over social value (which is not the same as the 'liberty' v. 'safety' issue of my quote below) which needs to be explained. You might think that neoliberal economics is 'common sense', but it doesn't actually work in providing an equitable and just society, so in my mind, you need to explain equally why you think there should be no constraints in this area.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I fear we are getting into straw man territory here. I have said nothing in favour of 'neoliberal' economics. One of the absurdities of many debates on this forum is how one can become branded as an extreme right-winger for expressing views that are actually pretty much in the centre of current politics. When it comes to practical politicies (as opposed to entertaining arguments on Soapbox) I'm probably not that far to the right of you! [;)]

Nor do I dispute that individual choice can be constrained in the interest of society. Otherwise I wouldn't be a strong advocate of sustainable transport ffs! Nonetheless, I still maintain that in a free society the onus is on the state to justify imposing those constraints, not on individuals to have to defend their basic rights (which include rights over their own property/wealth) against a default presumption that the state knows better.

Gary Askwith · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

.....our actions resonate in others, since we get so much from society that society should have a say in those actions.....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, but only insofar as our actions have a direct adverse effect on others. It's nothing to do with being right or left wing - it's called libertarianism.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Depends on definition of those 'adverse effects...?
I regard the gradual polarisation of our society and the world in general as more than a little 'adverse'...libertarianism has a lot to answer for

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Depends on definition of those 'adverse effects...?
I regard the gradual polarisation of our society and the world in general as more than a little 'adverse'...libertarianism has a lot to answer for

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are we talking here about the polarisation between those who are polically and economically free (and tend to be rather rich as as result) and those who are victims of repressive governments ( and who tend to be poor as a result)?

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Sorry, but posing your own questions about your own proposal doesn't answer mine! And no matter how you try to restate what your proposal means, you have still previously accepted that your proposal involved a restriction on individual choice, so how about explaining why it is justified? Answers to your own questions above would be helpful!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I am asking you these questions because I think that if you thought about it you would know the answers... however if you don't want to do some thinking, I am quite happy to tell you what I think are the answers:

1. Why might it be a good thing to constrain what schools can charge to the same amount as the 'voucher'? And why might it be a bad idea not to do so?

The reason for doing this is to offer every child the opportunity to have quantitatively as good an education as any other child, yet also for a much wider range of educational philosophies to be available from 'Chalk'n'talk' to 'Free School' (within the framework of national standards that I mentioned before), so that everyone has a similar opportunity to make the best of what they can do (which will be a whole range of different things).

If any school is allowed to charge more that automatically reduces the choice for poorer parents and starts to make opportunity increasingly a product of (inherited) wealth and not talent, ability or effort. It also means that no school can skew things by offering significantly more money to get the best teachers (if that is indeed a major motivation) - teachers would also be able to decide what kind of school they wished to work in without disadvantaging themselves.

The choice that parents / kids end up with then is based on education and philosophical outlook not on the inequitable outcome of pre-exisitng economic divisions. Certainly these things will continue to exist but there's no reason to allow education to help replicate them generation after generation... a framed market like this allows choice to be made in terms of education NOT money. At the moment, the system produces concentration, massive inequality, little real choice, and little diversity in education types and styles.

2. What does this mean for private schools? Does it mean they would vanish? If not, what would happen?

Private schools would not vanish, in fact there would probably be a l lot more of them with far greater variety. It is just that the label 'private' would no longer equate to 'privilege' - they would be differentiated by educational philosophy and practice, not by the levels of fees they charge, their unaccountablility, old boy networks, or dubious tax breaks. Private schools would have to operate to exactly the same laws and national framework, but again the reason for their existence would be to do with educational philosophy not profit.

3. Why does this not limit parents' spending on education for their children (as if you could do such a thing even if you wanted to...)?

Because you can't stop parents spending on education outside of school. Wealthier people will innevitably be able to afford more books, extra tuition etc. There's not a lot you can do about that. But the control of school fees would mean that these inequalities would stand a better chance of not being so extreme in future, and equally-funded but differentially-run schools would enable everyone to get the same level and value of state-funded education but without the problems of 'one size fits all'...

Now you will have to explain why an unconstrained market would produce better social outcomes, and redcogs would have to explain why having no choice at all would do the same...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

mjones · May 2007

FM- thank you for kindly assisting my inferior thought processes by explaining your own thinking! I will respond in detail when I'm back from a meeting, though on quick reading I would probably agree with most of what you said.

However, you are still being rather naughty when you ask "Now you will have to explain why an unconstrained market would produce better social outcomes.." I have no need to explain any such thing because, at risk of tedious repetition, I have made no such claim and you are, again, putting up a straw man. Possibly a false dichotomy as well, because our options are not limited to a choice between your proposal and a completely unconstrained market system.

Gary Askwith · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Depends on definition of those 'adverse effects...?
I regard the gradual polarisation of our society and the world in general as more than a little 'adverse'...libertarianism has a lot to answer for

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are we talking here about the polarisation between those who are polically and economically free (and tend to be rather rich as as result) and those who are victims of repressive governments ( and who tend to be poor as a result)?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Blanket assumptions there patrick...I was thinking more along these lines:
[url][/url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6702015.stm[url][/url]
Which deserves its own thread but do we want simoncp crawling out....?[xx(]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
on quick reading I would probably agree with most of what you said.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I suspected you might... the absolutely crucial thing in it is to constrain the cost of education though, otherwise none of it works. I am still not sure you do agree with this!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
However, you are still being rather naughty when you ask "Now you will have to explain why an unconstrained market would produce better social outcomes.." I have no need to explain any such thing because, at risk of tedious repetition, I have made no such claim and you are, again, putting up a straw man. Possibly a false dichotomy as well, because our options are not limited to a choice between your proposal and a completely unconstrained market system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Annoying when people argue with something you didn't say, isn't it? [;)]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

redcogs · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Foghat

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Us collectivising equalitarians eagerly anticipate the complete withering away of the state once a classless society has been achieved and there are no longer any social groups to repress or any privilege to protect.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you think you're in for anything other than an eternal wait, you really don't understand human nature, redcogs. History and everyday experience demonstrate that there will always be an underclass of lazy, immoral, anti-social and deliberately moronic people who are immune to the benefits of a wholesome education and of the contribution to their standard of living by the rest of society; long may the meritocratic class distinction between the worthy and those who choose the easy path remain.

While I'm here, how come you lot post so much during 'normal working hours'.....whose time are you loafing on? [;)]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dear Mr Foghat. i'm a bit nervous of trying to tackle you on any subject at all, i've witnessed the way you have treated Cuddy, and being a bit inclined towards non violent solutions, i cant bear the thought of too much 'blood on the carpet'..

The best i can do is refer you to the previous discussion (in this thread) which i thought adequately dealt with the 'human nature' argument.

your honorable servant - redcogs.

please look up to the stars.. ***

mr_hippo · May 2007

I am amazed at the number of posters who label kids who do not attend grammar schools as losers/failures/no-hopers, why?
In any educational system, the cream will always rise to the top and the dregs will fall to the bottom. Please note, I am not literally referring to anyone as dregs. However, there will be exceptions.

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 9/10 June: Update published: Monday 11 June

cuddy duck · May 2007

Foghat's around?
Hey, Mr. Sunshine, get over here and hump my leg. You know you want to. <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">History and everyday experience demonstrate that there will always be an underclass of lazy, immoral, anti-social and deliberately moronic people<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Crikey, seems a bit bleak. I'll hazard that's genetic?

There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing. But no cyclists: that's one thing we can be sure of....

rob35 · May 2007

Spire.
Your opening comment is the most disgusting post I have ever read on this forum.
Children are born into their situation, they don't choose to be poor or disadvantaged, they deserve all the help they can get, to prove themselves worthy tax payers just like the rest of us.
Children recieving school dinners are on average of lower intelligence...
You KN*B.
Or slightly more educated
PEN*S
The same applies

Unknown · May 2007

Some interesting posts you make there, FM. There is of course significant merit in a voucher system for education, not least because of the competitive aspect of schools vying for vouchers, but you still haven't made a convincing case for restricting what parents can spend on their children's education. And the onus is on proponents of the proposed restriction to justify it rather than on fee-paying parents to prove that their level of expenditure doesn't reduce the quality of education for others, as mjones rightly has pointed out.

Whilst superficially plausible, your system is really just a romantic ideal which founders on an impractical complexity and on the crux, that you allude to yourself, of it almost inevitably being unaffordable. Your argument seems to be that by abolishing private fee-paying schools (which account for only a relatively small proportion of all school places) where the costs of education pro rata are greater than for state education, the surplus and tax breaks saved by forcibly returning pupils to state education, and the enforced re-distribution of private wealth associated with these comparatively few private educational establishments, will somehow miraculously elevate the whole of the nation's education system to a higher average level for everyone. This clearly will not happen, though, because (as others have pointed out) fee-paying parents don't use the state school places they pay for in their taxes, and how would you ensure that the surplus got paid into the education system anyway, when it is an irrevocably discretionary choice of expenditure by the parents? The only way to increase standards in state schools would be to increase taxes - yes, you could target the wealthy for this, but why not just do that anyway and let those who choose to forego their bought-and-paid-for state school places continue with private provision?

Which brings us to your proposed enforced equitable level of education for all, at a level inevitably below that of the high performing private schools, for the sake of reassuring the 'main' population that their children aren't disadvantaged by the higher achievement of the more aspirational. Only a while ago, you were advocating the identification and pushing of children with more talent, yet now you're saying that all children should have the same quantitatively good education. If you still stand by both statements, then pushing can only be achieved by better qualitative education for those identified as talented, which of course means additional resources employed in providing for these talented ones - after all you can't divert staff from the main group to provide higher quality teaching to the talented, because that would detract from the main group's provision. So pushing talented children, which is eminently desirable, will cost more, but under your proposed system, all those previously privately educated children, who would have their parents paying to push them if they could, now get their extra provision paid for by the state!

This all leads us to the conclusion that the dual state/private-unrestricted-fee-paying system is the most practicable one, if not necessarily precisely as currently configured, and I agree with you that it needs some level of reform to make it more equitable.

Unknown · May 2007

No need to be nervous, redcogs! [:)] I'm a reasonable person....

No, I don't suffer fools gladly, especially when the irrationality is wanton, but you seem perfectly amiable and well-intentioned in your ideological naivety, and therefore undeserving of the derision others seem hellbound in attracting.

So tackle away, and as long as you continue to show your customary decorum, then I won't administer a virtual pasting. [;)]

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rob35

Spire.
Your opening comment is the most disgusting post I have ever read on this forum.
Children are born into their situation, they don't choose to be poor or disadvantaged, they deserve all the help they can get, to prove themselves worthy tax payers just like the rest of us.
Children recieving school dinners are on average of lower intelligence...
You KN*B.
Or slightly more educated
PEN*S
The same applies
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Have you been following this debate, or have you jumped from page 1 to here?

I suspect the latter, otherwise your post would have been less abusive (I hope). Calling people names is something you should have left behind in the playground.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Foghat
Your argument seems to be that by abolishing private fee-paying schools (which account for only a relatively small proportion of all school places) where the costs of education pro rata are greater than for state education
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But I am not sure that the spending per pupil is higher (i'd have to check this, but i'm sure i've read before that state schools often spend more per pupil than private schools), which is the point. Current high private school fees don't necssarily get translated into higher spending per pupil.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
the surplus and tax breaks saved by forcibly returning pupils to state education
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's not what I am proposing at all. You are making a straw man...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
why not just do that anyway and let those who choose to forego their bought-and-paid-for state school places continue with private provision?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because the point of the system I am proposing is not about money but about diversity of provision, and the ability of people to chose in reality not just in theory, based on what kind of education they want not how much money they have... if you let schools charge what they want then there's no point, and even more so if there were to be more private educational providers.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Which brings us to your proposed enforced equitable level of education for all, at a level inevitably below that of the high performing private schools, for the sake of reassuring the 'main' population that their children aren't disadvantaged by the higher achievement of the more aspirational.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The equity is in provision; what comes out of that is only regulated by the framwork of national standards. There is no suggestion that higher performance will be reduced or that some schools will not focus almost entirely on the highly intellectually capabable. Where did you get the impression this was about levelling down?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Only a while ago, you were advocating the identification and pushing of children with more talent, yet now you're saying that all children should have the same quantitatively good education.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

When I said quantitately, I mean by measurement of money going in per pupil, that's all. I thought that was pretty clear. If not, it is now.

The rest of your statement (not quoted here) assumes that teaching intellectual pupils is harder and requires more talented staff than those who are not. I think you'll find that the opposite is true in practice. And in any case, with the ability to experiment with a greater diversity educational techniques you'd be able to find better ways of dealing constructively, effectively and efficiently with almost every child.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
This all leads us to the conclusion that the dual state/private-unrestricted-fee-paying system is the most practicable one<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't think you've managed to show that at all, except by taking enormous liberties with what I said! And the fact that there are other countries who already do things in a way that's more like the way I'm suggesting and achieve better standards of education overall, and indeed rank far better for the happiness of children and young people (remember the recent report?), suggests completely the opposite conclusion...

Of course mine is a suggested made off the cuff that would probably not be implemented exactly as suggested in practice, but I find your reluctance to consider any change rather Panglossian, not to say blinkered in ignoring better working examples from elsewhere. If Britain had anything like the best educational system and the happiest kids in developed countries I'd have to agree with you, but on almost every measure, we do not have anything like either.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

jedster · June 2007

FM,

basically I aggree with the idea of a voucher system with capped top- ups for the reasons that you suggest. I'd add a point though, I'd would not stop private schools from charging fees above this capped top-up, parents would just have to forgo the vouchers if they wanted this kind of exclusivity. Why? Just a basic libertarian outlook.
In practice, I suspect the market for these very high price schools would be small and the schools would not have superior outcomes.

I'd also have a system of means testing that would give less well-off families additional vouchers.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

I enjoyed reading this: [:)]

William, 10, has just added smashing his neighbour's greenhouse to his list of crimes. Other recent misdemeanours include breaking into an artist's studio, turning his sister's best hat into a plant-pot, almost blinding his aunties with a catapult, flooding the hall (during a water-fight with his cousin), defacing school text-books, and locking an especially deadly relative in a shed.

This particular William is, of course, Richmal Crompton's fictional Just William - back in the days when such behaviour was put down to 'boyish high spirits', and merited a hefty slipper on the backside from Father.

But what would happen to 'Just William: the 2006 re-make'? That's obvious: he would be diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and given Ritalin until he sat still and reflected on his

Personal, Social and Emotional Development, as dictated by the National Curriculum. Never mind plant-pot hats and wild adventures: his fantastic Standard Assessment Test (SAT) scores in Maths, English and Science would be helping his primary school to creep up yet another percentage point in this year's league table, and his head teacher would be counting the extra pennies to spend on yet another white-board.

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rob35

Spire.
Your opening comment is the most disgusting post I have ever read on this forum.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Good grief! What on earth has Spire posted? [:p]

jedster · June 2007

redcogs

You mention the "working classs majority" in one of your posts. I'm not sure how to identify "working class" these days. How do you do it?

e.g.,

I'm salaried rather than being an owner of a business. I don't manage anyone. I was educated in state comprehensives. Am I working class?

I do own a house (albeit with a mortgage). Does that mean I'm not working class?

Is a brickie that owns their own home working class? What if he does a bit of property development on the side?

Or perhaps working class just means income below a certain level?

What's your definition these days?

Cheers,

J

david2 · June 2007

Well jedster, it don't sound like you're one of the owners of the means of production. If you don't work you starve (or would if it wasn't for the welfare state) which I guess makes you a wage slave. I'd say that would put you among the working classes.

redcogs · June 2007

davis2's definition seems about right jedster. The objective and fundamental class division is determined by your (ones) 'relationship to the means of production' - Do you sell your labour, or do you buy and exploit someone elses? Thus, from using this basic formula, it is easy to see that the working class is in a clear majority of the UK (and world) population. Of course, shades of grey exist, but they do not alter the fundamentals.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

[off-topic]

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs
The objective and fundamental class division is determined by your (ones) 'relationship to the means of production' - Do you sell your labour, or do you buy and exploit someone elses? Thus, from using this basic formula, it is easy to see that the working class is in a clear majority of the UK (and world) population. Of course, shades of grey exist, but they do not alter the fundamentals.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I should clarify that this is the Marxist definition of class, which is no more objective than any other calculated division of society and only the fundamental one if you're a Marxist.

The most commonly-understood division would be the British standard 'Upper, Middle and Working' division that redcogs used a few pages back when accusing me, a wage slave like most, of the terrible crime of being middle-class... [;)] although ironically no more middle-class than Marx himself.

There are more detailed occupational, family and income-based classifications and of course consumption classes. One of the big problems with a straightforward application of Marx's class analysis to contemporary postindustrial societies is that consumption has largely replaced production as the way differentiation occurs.

Of course this is because the division of labour in a Marxist sense has gone global - the real global proletariat is largely elsewhere in the world (although immigration shoves this back in our faces so we can't ignore it) with the majority of people in developed capitalist nations are members of the 'global bourgeoisie': home-owning, pension-scheme paying, consuming and comfortable.

Most analyses these days would have difficult in defining more than around 1/3 of people in the UK as 'working class'...

[/off-topic]

redcogs · June 2007

Well 'Monkey, as we know from your proposed marketisation of education model, 'you pays your money and you takes your choice'.

i made mine a long time ago as a consequence of being born and bought up in a tough working class environment that knew both morality, and the value and worth of real labour.

Others, particularly those cossetted and cushioned from the consequences of real world exploitation were perhaps able to select other choices.

Academics are in such a false environment wouldn't you say?

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Academics are in such a false environment wouldn't you say?

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And the last of the reds is in a real one? [;)][:)]

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Class class class... I think the old divisions are old hat[:)] In the 21st century I personally prefer to see class as being self selected by taste and lifestyle than any accident of birth or personal wealth

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories