Should private schools help state schools?

mjones · May 2007

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

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

This is because schools in Scandanavia are primarily about educating people not perpetuating a class system...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not sure what you are saying here. I'd agree that educational failings perpetuate social inequality; on the other hand many of the underlying causes of the failings of state education (lack of discipline, aspiration or parental support) arise because of social problems. But that is a very different thing from suggesting that social inequality is the intended outcome of the educational system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mjones - have a look at the history of the private ('public') school system, in particular its growth in C19th. You'll see a system designed to produce emotionally-stunted imperial administrators with unquestionable self-belief in their status as top of the heap. This aim was for most of the history of public schools far more than intellectual endeavour.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
OK, you were referring specifically to private schools. That wasn't completely clear in your earlier post, which might have been interpreted as a comment on schools in general. redcogs has previously argued that the education system as a whole is intended to maintain class division as if businesses somehow stand to gain from the vast numbers of illiterate, innumerate and inarticulate teenagers that currently emerge from it.

As for private schools, I wouldn't want to generalise but I do have concerns about the emotional development of those who are sent off to isolated, single-sex boarding schools for most of their childhood.

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

State education until the invention of comprehensives was also designed to separate out people into class categories (it allowed limited mobility between categories, but this largely acted to confirm the belief of those who benefitted that nothing was wrong with the system...).

You might think this mentality has disappeared, but I don't think it has...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Again, I'd dispute the 'designed to' element of this argument. No doubt some of those involved in grammar schools were happy to perpetuate class division, but I don't think it is fair to state as a fact that this was an explicit intention of the system itself. That sounds too much like redcogs' class paranoia. Incidentally I'm not in favour of a return to selective education, though that is a different topic anyway...

redcogs · May 2007

The 'I'm working hard to send my child to private school because the education provided by the state is inadequate' line is well represented here. Its wrapped in fancy language and a variety of justifications, but however it's presented, in the real world its still called kicking the ladder away.

Everyone with a modicum of intellect realises that it is access to a decent education that brings forth the glittering prizes of economic success and a good quality of life.

However our acutely divided society continues to academically neglect and discriminate against millions of working class kids. The 'prizes' of economic and social success are simply not available to them. And you don't need to be a marxist shot through with "class paranoia" to realise it, even Cameron and Willetts have finally recognised that the continuation of class biased schooling policy, which has been largely determined by the needs of perhaps only 10% of the population in the past, has to be changed.

The ongoing rank discrimination against working class kids in our 'society' is not only totally unjustifiable, it is seriously damaging. The tradgedy is that state education will only be improved properly once a social movement develops to demand it. On the evidence of this thread, too many are content to dump those at the bottom as long as they have a route to the top that is accessible via the thick wallet.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · May 2007

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

The 'I'm working hard to send my child to private school because the education provided by the state is inadequate' line is well represented here. Its wrapped in fancy language and a variety of justifications, but however it's presented, in the real world its still called kicking the ladder away.

Everyone with a modicum of intellect realises that it is access to a decent education that brings forth the glittering prizes of economic success and a good quality of life.

However our acutely divided society continues to academically neglect and discriminate against millions of working class kids. The 'prizes' of economic and social success are simply not available to them. And you don't need to be a marxist shot through with "class paranoia" to realise it, even Cameron and Willetts have finally recognised that the continuation of class biased schooling policy, which has been largely determined by the needs of perhaps only 10% of the population in the past, has to be changed.

The ongoing rank discrimination against working class kids in our 'society' is not only totally unjustifiable, it is seriously damaging. The tradgedy is that state education will only be improved properly once a social movement develops to demand it. On the evidence of this thread, too many are content to dump those at the bottom as long as they have a route to the top that is accessible via the thick wallet.

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

Some of what you're saying there just doesn't make sense. The "kicking the ladder away" argument is usually applied to those who enjoyed a grammar school education but who subsequently support the comprehensive system i.e. they were glad to take the benefits and the associated chance of upward mobility when offered it and now they would deny it others. How can it possbily be applied to those sending their children to private schools?

Secondly those sending their children to private schools are not damaging anyone else. You could argue that they are doing a favour to others as they have already paid their taxes, some of which will be used on the state education system and by then sending their children to private school they are not being a drain on the resources to which they have contributed.

Your second paragraph is sound common sense. Unfortunately the state dismally fails to deliver much of an opportunity to a decent education. Doing away with private schools will do nothing to correct this and you could argue that this is a powerful case for the continued existence of private schools as somebody in the UK probably needs to learn how to spell.

There was a chance for working class kids to take the "prizes" but as has been heavily debated on the grammar school thread, that chance has largely been shut off. You also seem to have a vaguely utopian ideal that all kids will respond to a decent education. All kids from famiilies whose parents take an interest in their education probably will (irrespective of class background) but as long as you have deadleg parents, you will have deadleg kids. None of this could possibly be remedied by doing away with private schools.

"... state education will only be improved properly once a social movement develops to demand it." That won't happen as long as there are deadleg parents. Target them if you want to make a difference. Attacking private schools to benefit working class kids is like buying a bus ticket to get on a plane: it just won't have the desired effect.

Disclaimer: I've got no personal interest in or anything to do with private schools.

mr_hippo · May 2007

redcogs, may I suggest that you
a) accept the situation and do nothing or
b) Continue to whinge and still do nothing or
c) Change the system
The ball is now in your court!

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 26/27 May: Update published: Monday 28 May

elstonc · May 2007

Try a "thought" experiment. Imagine two local schools are going to swap pupils but keep their original teachers, facilities and budget. One is a private school and the other a comp from a "sink estate". Now imagine you have a child leaving primary school and you alone have a choice as to which school to send them to (both at the state's expense, so no fees for either). Which do you choose? The posh school with the sink estate pupils or the comp with the posh pupils?

If you choose the former, you believe the problem with our poorer comprehensive schools lies with the teachers and the facilities. If you choose the latter, you believe the problem lies with the pupils, in which case exchanging staff and facilities will make no difference and is just a bit of new labour popularism.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

Secondly those sending their children to private schools are not damaging anyone else. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The only snag is that it gives them a vested interest in state schools being as dreadful as possible so their children are far ahead of state school children.

babyjebus · May 2007

As no one seems to have mentioned it in pages, yes, of course private schools that claim charitable status should be forced to share their facilities with the public, or risk losing such status. Having visited Eton recently I was absolutely amazed to discover that the furniture included Barcelona and Eams chairs and other ludicrously expensive items. Somehow I doubt Oxfam HQ has the same. The sell-off of school playing fields was a Thatcher policy, like so many unreversed by the current bunch of Tory wimps.

As for tertiary education, prestigious older universities know very well that private schools are exam factories for the dim middle classes and treat their results with a pinch of salt.

Cecy · 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 ankev1

Secondly those sending their children to private schools are not damaging anyone else. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The only snag is that it gives them a vested interest in state schools being as dreadful as possible so their children are far ahead of state school children.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh come on, people just aren't that spiteful. Plus anyone clever enough to make enough money to send their kids to private school almost certainly has to find employees and work with other businesses and so on and in general, it's better to have a better-educated workforce.

The problem is more that the reasons why so many state schools are poor is not understood by those who went to half-decent ones or private schools. My secondary school was dire. It was nothing to do with class sizes, nor the fact that around 50% of us had English as a second language. Nor that we had no books and that the rain and bits of the roof fell on us during classes. It was because many of the teachers either could not or would not do any teaching. No-one seemed to be able to fire these teachers or do anything about the quality of the lessons. There were other teachers who got us through o-levels with no textbooks, just pure talk and chalk.

Teacher performance is the elephant in the room here, and it's so much easier to talk about taking charitable status away from private schools rather than take on the NUT and suggest their members act like professionals instead of cowboys. Ironically, that is exactly what the minister suggested by implying that the state sector had something to learn from the private sector. So how does the state school headteacher react when it's put to him on the Today Programme? He gets all offended and insists his staff have nothing to learn, stereotyping the private schools as "Brideshead Revisited". The private school headteacher was entirely happy with the idea of his teachers working with the public sector. There is no other profession with a such a segregation of private and public practitioners.

cc

mjones · May 2007

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

The 'I'm working hard to send my child to private school because the education provided by the state is inadequate' line is well represented here. Its wrapped in fancy language and a variety of justifications, but however it's presented, in the real world its still called kicking the ladder away.

Everyone with a modicum of intellect realises that it is access to a decent education that brings forth the glittering prizes of economic success and a good quality of life.

However our acutely divided society continues to academically neglect and discriminate against millions of working class kids. The 'prizes' of economic and social success are simply not available to them. And you don't need to be a marxist shot through with "class paranoia" to realise it, even Cameron and Willetts have finally recognised that the continuation of class biased schooling policy, which has been largely determined by the needs of perhaps only 10% of the population in the past, has to be changed.

The ongoing rank discrimination against working class kids in our 'society' is not only totally unjustifiable, it is seriously damaging. The tradgedy is that state education will only be improved properly once a social movement develops to demand it. On the evidence of this thread, too many are content to dump those at the bottom as long as they have a route to the top that is accessible via the thick wallet.

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

Yet again you completely ignore the fact that most, if not all, of of those of us who you are attacking in this discussion have been to state schools and send their children to state schools, and want to see higher standards of state education for all.

The thing that depresses me most about your posts redcogs is the underlying impression of bitterness and resentment towards those who try to do the best for their children's education. You seem to regard it is reprehensible for a parent to want to send their child to a better school if their local comprehensive is lousy; yet you have said nothing about those parents whose lack of support for education is behind many of the failings of state schools.

If you are a parent it is your duty to make sure your child has a good education. So if the local school is crap, you can't solve its problems by yourself, so surely it is your duty to find a better school? And if the mobile middle classes keep fleeing a particular school, surely the answer is to try to improve that school? Is forcing a few more middle class kids to endure bullying and the anti-education culture of their peers really going to make that school better? Most people would prefer to use a decent state school than pay a fortune for a private school.

So far you have said little about how you think poor schools can be improved; you seem to be much more interested in trying to make good schools worse so that everyone suffers poor standards together. So can we have some positive suggestions for how in practice state education can be improved? By which I mean specific policies about funding, standards, governance etc, not vague ideals. So forget the posh schools for a minute- how can we improve the crap schools?

Unknown · May 2007

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

<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 ankev1

Secondly those sending their children to private schools are not damaging anyone else. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The only snag is that it gives them a vested interest in state schools being as dreadful as possible so their children are far ahead of state school children.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh come on, people just aren't that spiteful. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, but if you pay out œ25,000 a year in fees you want to feel that your children have some advantages. It can be a bit galling to see your child pipped to that coveted Oxbridge place by someone equally well educated in the state system.

ankev1 · May 2007

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

As no one seems to have mentioned it in pages, yes, of course private schools that claim charitable status should be forced to share their facilities with the public, or risk losing such status. Having visited Eton recently I was absolutely amazed to discover that the furniture included Barcelona and Eams chairs and other ludicrously expensive items. Somehow I doubt Oxfam HQ has the same. The sell-off of school playing fields was a Thatcher policy, like so many unreversed by the current bunch of Tory wimps.

As for tertiary education, prestigious older universities know very well that private schools are exam factories for the dim middle classes and treat their results with a pinch of salt.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Those expensive items of furniture were paid for by the parents of the pupils. What has that got to do with Oxfam HQ? Are you perhaps suggesting that because, as a public school, Eton enjoys charitable status, that it should not have posh furniture. As long as the parents, who after all foot the bill, are happy, I can't see a difficulty. I've no doubt that a greater percentage of the money going into Eton gets more efficiently targeted than the money going into the average conventional charity.

What other organisations of charitable status would you wish to share their property with the failing public sector?

Just out of curiousity, in what capacity were you visiting Eton?

mjones · 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 Cecy

<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 ankev1

Secondly those sending their children to private schools are not damaging anyone else. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The only snag is that it gives them a vested interest in state schools being as dreadful as possible so their children are far ahead of state school children.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh come on, people just aren't that spiteful. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, but if you pay out œ25,000 a year in fees you want to feel that your children have some advantages. It can be a bit galling to see your child pipped to that coveted Oxbridge place by someone equally well educated in the state system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'd agree that users of private education have less of a stake in state education, which is a problem when those people are more likely to be decision makers, government ministers etc. In that respect education is no different from other public services that end up being viewed as a service of last resort for the poor. Compare for example the level of political interest in rail travel in comparison with that for buses, even though the latter carry far more people.

However, there is a difference between not having a stake in state education and actively working for its failure, the latter being what redcogs seems to think is going on. I take it that as a good libertarian you would not join redcogs in wanting to destroy private education in order to improve state schools! [:0]

ankev1 · May 2007

Patrick,

I think part of the problem these days is that if you go to a public school, universities, employers etc. know that you've had a good education and so any advantage gained is on a real basis. When the grammar schools were around and providing equally you could argue that advantage gained was on a snob basis. It seems odd that misplaced reformist zeal has removed the snob value from public schools as the public sector now offers no competition.

Unknown · May 2007

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

I take it that as a good libertarian you would not join redcogs in wanting to destroy private education in order to improve state schools! [:0]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You can safely assume that redcogs and I are far apart on that issue.

There is however a major problem in the all too often, the decision makers do not use public services and have no personal stake in improving them.

ankev1 · May 2007

More like the decision makers are too incompetent to improve them. How many years of Labour govt and they're all sending their kids to fee paying schools?

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

More like the decision makers are too incompetent to improve them. How many years of Labour govt and they're all sending their kids to fee paying schools?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not quite all of them! Most manage to get the children into a good state school. Oxbridge entrance tends to be pretty easy if a parent is a cabinet minister. [;)]

Jaded · May 2007

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

There is however a major problem in the all too often, the decision makers do not use public services and have no personal stake in improving them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm afraid that it isn't just the decision makers. It is almost everyone who isn't a parent of school-age children. The combination of the geographic break-up of society (largely through society's unquestioning acceptance of cheap Private Transport) and the isolating of individuals into Me Me people means that the only involvement non-parents have with schools is to moan about the - be it the outrageous behaviour of the children or the useless output.

Maybe when the level of Private Transport declines somewhat and people have to take an interest in things in their immediate locality again, education will improve.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cecy · May 2007

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

I'm afraid that it isn't just the decision makers. It is almost everyone who isn't a parent of school-age children. The combination of the geographic break-up of society (largely through society's unquestioning acceptance of cheap Private Transport) and the isolating of individuals into Me Me people means that the only involvement non-parents have with schools is to moan about the - be it the outrageous behaviour of the children or the useless output.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But how would you improve things if you wanted to? What would you change? How would you decide what to change? At the school I attended, me and my friends wanted the place to be better, our parents wanted it to be better. There were actually quite a lot of fairly clever people around - weird though it seems a fair number of us went to university with someone going to Oxbridge every couple of years. This from a school where fewer than 10% passed an English o-level and outsiders were terrified of us "rough" kids.

The people whose children go to state schools aren't helpless creatures who need the clever people to come and tell them how to sort things out - the problem of how to improve state schools is really tough and intractible.

cc

Jaded · May 2007

Many ways. e.g. a proportion of the budget is under the control of interested parties. i.e. staff, users and local people.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

spire · May 2007

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

1. As no one seems to have mentioned it in pages, yes, of course private schools that claim charitable status should be forced to share their facilities with the public, or risk losing such status.

2. Having visited Eton recently I was absolutely amazed to discover that the furniture included Barcelona and Eams chairs and other ludicrously expensive items. Somehow I doubt Oxfam HQ has the same.

3. The sell-off of school playing fields was a Thatcher policy, like so many unreversed by the current bunch of Tory wimps.

4. As for tertiary education, prestigious older universities know very well that private schools are exam factories for the dim middle classes and treat their results with a pinch of salt.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. Why should parents who are already paying through the nose bail out the state for cocking it up?

2. Paid for by the parents, so what has it got to do with you?

3. How is that the fault of private schools?

4. In that case, why are you whinging if the rich are wasting their money?

redcogs · May 2007

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

Yet again you completely ignore the fact that most, if not all, of of those of us who you are attacking in this discussion have been to state schools and send their children to state schools, and want to see higher standards of state education for all.

The thing that depresses me most about your posts redcogs is the underlying impression of bitterness and resentment towards those who try to do the best for their children's education. You seem to regard it is reprehensible for a parent to want to send their child to a better school if their local comprehensive is lousy; yet you have said nothing about those parents whose lack of support for education is behind many of the failings of state schools.

If you are a parent it is your duty to make sure your child has a good education. So if the local school is crap, you can't solve its problems by yourself, so surely it is your duty to find a better school? And if the mobile middle classes keep fleeing a particular school, surely the answer is to try to improve that school? Is forcing a few more middle class kids to endure bullying and the anti-education culture of their peers really going to make that school better? Most people would prefer to use a decent state school than pay a fortune for a private school.

So far you have said little about how you think poor schools can be improved; you seem to be much more interested in trying to make good schools worse so that everyone suffers poor standards together. So can we have some positive suggestions for how in practice state education can be improved? By which I mean specific policies about funding, standards, governance etc, not vague ideals. So forget the posh schools for a minute- how can we improve the crap schools?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i'm neither bitter or resentful towards parents who take steps to improve the education of their children. How could i be? One important factor in the redcogs's recent move to Scotland was the dreadful situation of a redcogs junior being in an English school class of 41 children, with only one qualified teacher, one 'assistant' (unqualified, given the job by networking, not interview process), and several demanding special needs children - an all round impossible situation. Coming to Aberdeenshire has seen the ratio fall to 25 to one teacher, with a modern school and good facilities - and cello lessons thrown in. i'm one of the geographically mobile who has voted with the feet..

my ire is directed at a system which inevitably creates educational failure for massive numbers of talented kids who are left stunted by a combination of problems, all of which relate to societies competetive 'mixed' economy. The root problem is the historical and political failure of 'our' social democracy, which has sought to pursue contradictory objectives - equality of opportunity and equality simultaneously.

In the equality of opportunity race, the 'elite' classes inevitably win hands down (due to social/economic advantage), ensuring a constant and repeating cycle of bias towards the wealthy. The Labour Party's pathetic failure to confront capitalisms inbuilt tendency towards meeting the requirements of the employers rather than the needs of all society led to them developing a comprehensive education system that merely pretended to offer better chances to working peoples children - in reality comprehensives didn't deliver, and social inequality has simply become more obvious, more entrenched, and much more acute.

In truth, whilst i wouldn't deny the possibility of some half decent reforms (short term), i'm very pessimistic about the prospects for significant educational improvement for most people within capitalism.. The complex relationships between social advantage of the wealthy and lack of educational achievement amongst those in relative poverty mean that real improvement is impossible without much wider social and economic changes. Unfortunately i dont see those happening in the immediate future.

please look up to the stars.. ***

mjones · May 2007

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

i'm neither bitter or resentful towards parents who take steps to improve the education of their children. How could i be?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well that's a bit more understanding than some of your earlier comments, e.g.:

The 'I'm working hard to send my child to private school because the education provided by the state is inadequate' line is well represented here. Its wrapped in fancy language and a variety of justifications, but however it's presented, in the real world its still called kicking the ladder away. 

and

On the evidence of this thread, too many are content to dump those at the bottom as long as they have a route to the top that is accessible via the thick wallet.

I take it you don't consider yourself to have been 'kicking away the ladder' when you did what you describe below?

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

One important factor in the redcogs's recent move to Scotland was the dreadful situation of a redcogs junior being in an English school class of 41 children, with only one qualified teacher, one 'assistant' (unqualified, given the job by networking, not interview process), and several demanding special needs children - an all round impossible situation. Coming to Aberdeenshire has seen the ratio fall to 25 to one teacher, with a modern school and good facilities - and cello lessons thrown in. i'm one of the geographically mobile who has voted with the feet..

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So not that different from those who go private, or can afford to the catchment area of a good school? You accept then that for many individual parents the desire to provide a good education for their children means doing their very best to avoid the local comprehensive?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
my ire is directed at a system which inevitably creates educational failure for massive numbers of talented kids who are left stunted by a combination of problems, all of which relate to societies competetive 'mixed' economy. The root problem is the historical and political failure of 'our' social democracy, which has sought to pursue contradictory objectives - equality of opportunity and equality simultaneously.

In the equality of opportunity race, the 'elite' classes inevitably win hands down (due to social/economic advantage), ensuring a constant and repeating cycle of bias towards the wealthy.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not really sure what you are trying to say here. Providing equality of opportunity is about making sure everyone can make the most of their ability, irrespective of background. Strictly speaking, that is what an 'elitist' education system is about- favouring the clever, not the rich.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The Labour Party's pathetic failure to confront capitalisms inbuilt tendency towards meeting the requirements of the employers rather than the needs of all society led to them developing a comprehensive education system that merely pretended to offer better chances to working peoples children - in reality comprehensives didn't deliver, and social inequality has simply become more obvious, more entrenched, and much more acute.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, this I don't agree with at all. It is nonsensical to suggest that the current education system is providing what capitalist employers want. Business representatives are regularly on the news complaining about the lack of skills coming out of the education system. Indeed, many employers would prefer far more emphasis was put on practical and vocational skills, which would suit a lot of the kids currently dropping out because they are disillusioned with the GCSE pass rate obsessed system we have at the moment.

Also, I note that you have still said nothing about the other social factors that are damaging state education- in particular the lack of parental support, poor discipline and lack of aspiration that is so prevalent in a large section of society. I don't know how to fix that either, but I'd sure as hell not try to pin the blame on those who take responsibility for their children's education and try to do the best for them.

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

In truth, whilst i wouldn't deny the possibility of some half decent reforms (short term), i'm very pessimistic about the prospects for significant educational improvement for most people within capitalism.. The complex relationships between social advantage of the wealthy and lack of educational achievement amongst those in relative poverty mean that real improvement is impossible without much wider social and economic changes. Unfortunately i dont see those happening in the immediate future.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But you still haven't said specifically what you think should be done! It isn't very helpful that your preferred solution to just about every problem is simply to 'get rid of capitalism'! Tell us, in practical terms, how you think the education system should work, then you can make a case as to why you think it won't work in our 'capitalist' society!

(NB- I put 'capitalist' in inverted commas because I'm not convinced that a country that spends over 40% of GDP on the state sector, including education, can really be described as 'capitalist' in the way that you appear to be using the word).

mr_hippo · May 2007

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

i'm neither bitter or resentful towards parents who take steps to improve the education of their children. How could i be? One important factor in the redcogs's recent move to Scotland was the dreadful situation of a redcogs junior being in an English school class of 41 children, with only one qualified teacher, one 'assistant' (unqualified, given the job by networking, not interview process), and several demanding special needs children - an all round impossible situation. Coming to Aberdeenshire has seen the ratio fall to 25 to one teacher, with a modern school and good facilities - and cello lessons thrown in. i'm one of the geographically mobile who has voted with the feet..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is redcogs secretly a closet bluecogs? The above quote could be simplified as "I can't afford to have redcogs junior educated in the private sector so I will disrupt the rest of my family and move so that he can attend a 'better' school. To the rest of the parents in redcogs junior's former school, all I can say is 'B*gger you, Jack, I'm alright now and don't give a 5hit about you." As for the free cello lessons, the colour is definitely changing.

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 26/27 May: Update published: Monday 28 May

ankev1 · May 2007

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

[
In the equality of opportunity race, the 'elite' classes inevitably win hands down (due to social/economic advantage), ensuring a constant and repeating cycle of bias towards the wealthy. The Labour Party's pathetic failure to confront capitalisms inbuilt tendency towards meeting the requirements of the employers rather than the needs of all society led to them developing a comprehensive education system that merely pretended to offer better chances to working peoples children - in reality comprehensives didn't deliver, and social inequality has simply become more obvious, more entrenched, and much more acute.

In truth, whilst i wouldn't deny the possibility of some half decent reforms (short term), i'm very pessimistic about the prospects for significant educational improvement for most people within capitalism.. The complex relationships between social advantage of the wealthy and lack of educational achievement amongst those in relative poverty mean that real improvement is impossible without much wider social and economic changes. Unfortunately i dont see those happening in the immediate future.

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

You can do a fair bit towards guaranteeing equality of opportunity but you can never guarantee equality of outcome. Decent parents (irrespective of background) will do as you have done and take whatever opportunity is available. Bad parents won't. A few unfortunates would like to but can't and it is they and their children who are the real victims of education policy.

And BTW, do you accept that doing away with grammar schools was a reduction in equality of opportunity?

spire · May 2007

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

i'm neither bitter or resentful towards parents who take steps to improve the education of their children. How could i be? One important factor in the redcogs's recent move to Scotland was the dreadful situation of a redcogs junior being in an English school class of 41 children, with only one qualified teacher, one 'assistant' (unqualified, given the job by networking, not interview process), and several demanding special needs children - an all round impossible situation. Coming to Aberdeenshire has seen the ratio fall to 25 to one teacher, with a modern school and good facilities - and cello lessons thrown in. i'm one of the geographically mobile who has voted with the feet..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So how can you criticise other parents who try and do their best for their children?

You have played the best cards you have got, just as they have done.

Unknown · May 2007

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

One important factor in the redcogs's recent move to Scotland was the dreadful situation of a redcogs junior being in an English school class of 41 children, with only one qualified teacher, one 'assistant' (unqualified, given the job by networking, not interview process), and several demanding special needs children - an all round impossible situation. Coming to Aberdeenshire has seen the ratio fall to 25 to one teacher, with a modern school and good facilities - and cello lessons thrown in. i'm one of the geographically mobile who has voted with the feet..

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

Being geographically mobile is linked with wealth! Those who own their own houses can sell and buy in another area. The poor who live in rented social housing cannot necessarily find somewhere affordable to rent in the catchment area of the better school. Thus the poor are left behind while the better off get a better education for their children. [:(]

How are the cello lessons going? [;)]

Cecy · May 2007

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

The Labour Party's pathetic failure to confront capitalisms inbuilt tendency towards meeting the requirements of the employers rather than the needs of all society led to them developing a comprehensive education system that merely pretended to offer better chances to working peoples children - in reality comprehensives didn't deliver, and social inequality has simply become more obvious, more entrenched, and much more acute.

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

What are you talking about Redcogs? In what sense are the requirements of employers different to the needs of all society? Employers and universities regard the English o-level or whatever it is now as being so fundamental that they wouldn't employ anyone without one. The most obvious failure in my school was that 90% of the kids did not get an English o-level at age 16. For that 90% - and in my year I'm talking about 360 kids out of 400, failure on a colossal scale - for that 90% the lack of an English o-level was their biggest handicap in life, not just in the jobs market.

Perhaps you could illustrate your political theories with some practical examples.

cc

Gary Askwith · May 2007

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

I'm afraid that it isn't just the decision makers. It is almost everyone who isn't a parent of school-age children. The combination of the geographic break-up of society (largely through society's unquestioning acceptance of cheap Private Transport) and the isolating of individuals into Me Me people means that the only involvement non-parents have with schools is to moan about the - be it the outrageous behaviour of the children or the useless output.

Maybe when the level of Private Transport declines somewhat and people have to take an interest in things in their immediate locality again, education will improve.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Nicely observed jaded....education private or state is in deep trouble..... reflects the trouble of our society itself
herees a little snippet to wet the appetite:

Twenty-five years ago, children starting school were encouraged to play, to skip, and to learn useful life skills like how to carry scissors safely. Now, though, the focus is on reading and writing and the Six Areas of Learning (to quote the Sure Start propaganda, which sounds suspiciously like something from Soviet Russia). So instead of just letting the children play with sand and water, we have 'knowledge and understanding of the world' (where they are officially assessed on their response to planting a sunflower seed), 'creative development' (can they colour a ladybird in red rather than purple? If so, tick that box...), and 'physical development' (i.e. do they bump into other children? If so, they're obviously autistic). Then there is the dreaded round of National Curriculum tests and assessments that have all but replaced singing, art and PE - and which have led directly to a rise in behavioural problems. In 2004, the Mental Health Foundation published a report, 'Tested To Destruction'. It found that the government-imposed Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) had created a huge rise in anxiety and stress levels, including mental health problems in children as young as four. The most common problems were difficulty in sleeping, being tearful and upset, feeling ill, loss of appetite and difficulty in relaxing. There were clear gender differences, with girls more frequently affected. 

Heres another:

The gentle slide into quasi-compulsory schooling for four-year-olds doesn't help. The current legal requirement is that children attend school from the start of the term following their fifth birthday - yet the vast majority of education authorities insist that children start full-time school in the September following their fourth birthday if they are to gain a place at their chosen primary school - meaning that many children are herded onto the educational conveyor belt when they are only just four.

Sally Bunday, founder of the Hyperactive Children's Support Group, finds this trend disturbing. "Parents complain that their four-year-old is behaving badly at school - when in fact their four-year-old is being made to act against his nature and his age by being there at all." Bear in mind that testosterone levels double at around a boy's fourth birthday - hardly the ideal time for him to be sitting still and learning pencil control.

Anyone care to kick start discussion about something more relevent than the tedious yah-boo question type drivel about whether your kids are off in private or public education ??.......[xx(]

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

Unknown · May 2007

Gaz,

I take it that you've deveoped a sudden interest in child education.[;)]

Canrider · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The combination of the geographic break-up of society (largely through society's unquestioning acceptance of cheap Private Transport) and the isolating of individuals into Me Me people means that the only involvement non-parents have with schools is to moan about the - be it the outrageous behaviour of the children or the useless output.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'd extend that 'Me Me' judgement to the parents as well! That's the source of the 'we'll move to a better catchment area, after all it'll only add 20 minutes to my commute' kind of logic, where a more effective logic societally would be 'Our local school is in trouble, what can I do to help?'.

How many years has it been since 'Ask not what your country can do for you..'?

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

Should private schools help state schools?

Comments

Categories