Loathsome Brown's 'doublethink' on education

redcogs · June 2007

I'd love to see a list of the "many" things that the private sector is "very good" at gillan.

Perhaps one persons "many" is another persons few.

The private sector is brilliant at taking, by sleight of hand, the fruits of other peoples labour, and then making most of us think it a perfectly acceptable, indeed, natural state of affairs.

Actually, its stealing from society. If only the scales would fall off the eyes.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Simon L2 · June 2007

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

Of course, deep down, Labour is terrified of genuinely raising educational standards - an educated working-class wouldn't know their place and would probably vote Tory.

(This is also one of the reasons redcogs and gillan are so anti-grammar schools!)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

wrong

take a look at the countries with really high educational attainment, like South Korea or Singapore. Poorly functioning democracies with suppressed discontent. The Blair ideal.

The truth is that the difference between conservative and labour on education is a hair's breadth - a fact that you were bemoaning only last month, spire. And the intention is plain - standardisation, learning by rote, a minimal interest in creative thought and the maximising of social conformity. The fact that it's going horribly wrong is neither here nor there.

Spire - you've not mentioned whether or not you have children. You don't owe us any kind of explanation, but you've been quite critical of my personal standpoint and I wondered (idly, perhaps) if you had one of your own.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

The truth is that the difference between conservative and labour on education is a hair's breadth - a fact that you were bemoaning only last month, spire. And the intention is plain - standardisation, learning by rote, a minimal interest in creative thought and the maximising of social conformity. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Tories like it because it is a cheap way of producing superior factory fodder and Labour likes it because everyone gets it.

spire · June 2007

Despite the rantings of gillan, superb education is available in this country to the lucky few: those in private education and those at the small number of remaining grammar schools. In may seem unfair that some enjoy this while others have to suffer the toxic Labour education programme (and I concede the Tories were little better), but the answer is not to destroy the best as this will simply drag standards down overall.

Government (national and local) should get out of education - for they selfishly use it for their own political purposes - and leave it to parents and teachers.

If a grammar school is not an option, anyone who can afford it should educate their children privately until the current regime changes. If you are an employer of managers, or a recruiter of academics, for example, it is a sad fact that a candidate educated at a comp will come a poor second at interview, even if the innate ability is the same.

(Stinking hypocrit politicians make their liberal elite rules for the proles and then do everything possible to bend or ignore these rules for their own kids: Abbott, Blair, Harman, etc, etc are all guilty of this.)

mjones · June 2007

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

I'd love to see a list of the "many" things that the private sector is "very good" at gillan.

Perhaps one persons "many" is another persons few.

The private sector is brilliant at taking, by sleight of hand, the fruits of other peoples labour, and then making most of us think it a perfectly acceptable, indeed, natural state of affairs.

Actually, its stealing from society. If only the scales would fall off the eyes.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm curious to know how much you think the tax man should take from the fruit of other people's labours? [;)]

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gillan1969

spire

if only the tories woud have some moral and ethical consistency

the fact is selective education conveys advantages to some at the expense of others...those at private schools (or selective schools) are in effect subsidised goods...gaining an unfair edge in the market place

if it were a market place the office of fair trading would have closed it down long ago

you seem to think that beacuse a few people gain then this is the the benefit of the whole...how so??

once again the rich screwing everyone over to protect their own, (rather thick it would appear) offspring

subsidy junkies

spire...the arthur scargill of the classroom

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Still leveling down gillan? As ever, it is clearly the fault of the good schools that other schools are bad; it is the fault of the parents who encourage their children's education that other parents couldn't give a toss. In the victim culture of socialism a la gillan and redcogs there must be no reward for personal responsibility. Trying to do the best for your children is cheating and should be punished.

We mustn't even discuss why it is that so many parents do nothing for, or even undermine, their children's education. Oh no, we mustn't ever criticise those who fail their children, because they are victims of society. Instead let's complain about how unfair it is that others make the effort, and devise cunning little social engineering schemes to drag them down again.[xx(]

spire · June 2007

Top class post, mjones!

Unknown · June 2007

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

The private sector is brilliant at taking, by sleight of hand, the fruits of other peoples labour, and then making most of us think it a perfectly acceptable, indeed, natural state of affairs.

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

As I have to write out a cheque to the Inland Revenue next month, may I say that the public sector seems to have mastered the technique too.

Unknown · June 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 redcogs

The private sector is brilliant at taking, by sleight of hand, the fruits of other peoples labour, and then making most of us think it a perfectly acceptable, indeed, natural state of affairs.

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

As I have to write out a cheque to the Inland Revenue next month, may I say that the public sector seems to have mastered the technique too.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But how much have you paid an accountant to make sure the cheque is for the smallest amount possible?

there is no "sleight of hand " in tax. Without it we would have no education, defence, NHS, etc etc

george

_________________________________
Trip
www.pedalpatagonia.co.uk

2 Bikes
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/imjibi/Bikes

redcogs · June 2007

The nauseous mjones and spire Fuc k the Poor Alliance never stops rolling does it?

We occupy a nation where top one tenth of the top one per cent of 'earners' now take home the same slice of total national income as they did in 1937. The gap between the super rich leeches and the rest of us has widened to pre-war levels after decades of convergence.

The impact of this disgusting wealth inequality is entirely predictable, with the underprivileged poor of society paying the price on every possible indicator. On health, after a lifetime on a low wages, the British Medical Journal recently found, your average working class person physically ages eight years earlier than high 'earners'. And capitalism's inequality isn't just content to bump the poor off 8 years before the rich, it also has our babies in its sights. A Department of Health report, also published recently, indicates that infant mortality impacts on the poor massively, and that there is a growing gap between the routine and manual classes and the general population, with infant mortality rates 19% higher in 2001-3, compared to 13% higher in 1997-9..

It surely comes as no surprise therefore, that the UK now has, according to the London School of Economics, the worse social mobility inequality in all the developed world.

The UK rich are oppressing the poor in every possible way, and, as if that wasn't bad enough, we have to witness representatives of the replete middle class coming here, not only justifying this disgraceful state of affairs, but also squealing like stuck pigs at any suggestion that the lowest of the low are entitled to some fairness of distribution and social justice.

The moment for a movement to expropriate you greedy bunch of vicious hyenas is long overdue.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · June 2007

I think it was Patrick who mentioned a voucher scheme. The way ahead is fairly obvious: Gordon Brown jacks up state money spent on every kid's education to the public school average: eight thousand. Parents get vouchers of this amount. All schools are to be run as current public schools are i.e. they get the same charitable status etc. On no account may they be run as profit making businesses (business profit = wasted taxpayers' money). Government grants where necessary for new one off school builds, as to provide the same level of education smaller establishments will be needed and the big, sprawling comps will have to be knocked down. Kids from deprived backgrounds must go to boarding schools to get them away from the malign influence of their deadleg parents. This will, incidentally, make such parents very happy as they can spend more time down the pub/at football matches etc.

Nobody could possibly lose; all kids would get a shot at high standard education, chav culture could be eliminated in one generation and everbody would be happy. Problem solved.

spire · June 2007

redcogs

You were obviously very grumpy last night and drifted way off topic.

If Brown wants to spend the same per head on state education as the private sector, where is the unfairness if the whole matter of education is taken out of the grubby hands of the state? You complain about the privilege of private education, but wish to deny the working class the opportunity to enjoy it (or grammar schools). KNOW YOUR PLACE, WORKING CLASS, DON'T ASPIRE! That is what you are saying.

redcogs · June 2007

spire. You may not have the ability to link general wealth inequality to educational underachievement, indeed, every time you initiate a thread on the topic of education (which is very regularly) you illustrate the point beyond any doubt.

However, wealth and social inequality is absolutely central to every and any discussion which seeks to understand why societies disadvantaged are being so appallingly failed.

This type of unreal nonsense will not do; "meddling Socialists need to control education to meet their social engineering agenda". The actual situation is that since the mid 1970s the political and economic direction of society has been consistently towards greater 'liberalisation', freer markets, privatisation, less democratic accountability, regardless of which political Party has been in office. It is quite ludicrous to suggest that Brown or Blair have some agenda which is anything other than a capitalist one.

The glaringly obvious truth is this - the lowest social class has been, and is being educationally pushed down, and then firmly held under by self self self middle class screamers who only focus on their private bank details regardless of the constant flow of evidence which illustrate beyond peradventure that social and wealth inequality is the source of educational failure - the absence or otherwise of grammar schools is a tiny red herring detail thrown in by the already privileged to distract our attention from the primary issue.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · June 2007

Redders,

on one of the recent education threads somebody cited the Channel 4 prog of recent years where a group of kids (overwhelmingly middle class I seem to remember) who were all predicted to get A* A levels, failed an old 11+ paper. These kids did not suffer from "social and wealth inequality", if anything they were on the benefit side of it. The fact is that a lot of what goes on in schools nowadays is grossly substandard compared with what used to be the case. This is nothing to do with poverty, although the poorer do worse out of the dropped standards because they can't pay for remedial private education.

The ill-educated youth of today can legitimately blame the "progressive" school of education for wrecking their chances. This was largely left wing driven. It has nothing to do with capitalism etc.

spire · June 2007

redcogs

So why won't you answer the question?

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

"Step by step we will raise investment in state school pupils - now œ5,500 per pupil - to today's levels for private school pupils: œ8,000 a year."

So why not just hand the whole thing over to private schools as their track record is somewhat better than government's?

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

Unknown · June 2007

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

On health, after a lifetime on a low wages, the British Medical Journal recently found, your average working class person physically ages eight years earlier than high 'earners'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd like to see some studies with smoking, drinking, drug taking and poor diet factored in.

spire · June 2007

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

I'd like to see some studies with smoking, drinking, drug taking and poor diet factored in.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not their fault, Patrick. They are forced to smoke, drink, take drugs and go to McD's by the evil, oppressive middle-class.[:0]

redcogs · June 2007

i have answered the question several times spire, on this and on your other obsessional threads.

Your preferred 'solutions' to the education crisis is not a 'solution' at all. Marketisation, competition, 'choice', league tables, grammar schools, 11 plus, privatisation, traditional standards, testing - whatever paraphernalia is selected to try to improve education, none of it has succeeded in reversing the ongoing drive towards ever greater educational inequality.

If you and the rest of your rightist 'thinkers' were truly concerned to promote educational achievement for all, then you would be questioning the very basis of capitalist societies priorities.

It is entirely obvious that significant educational improvements can only be attained if it is accompanied but much wider social changes - which isn't something that comfortable money grubbers could ever contemplate.

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · June 2007

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

1. i have answered the question several times spire, on this and on your other obsessional threads.

2. Your preferred 'solutions' to the education crisis is not a 'solution' at all. Marketisation, competition, 'choice', league tables, grammar schools, 11 plus, privatisation, traditional standards, testing - whatever paraphernalia is selected to try to improve education, none of it has succeeded in reversing the ongoing drive towards ever greater educational inequality.

3. If you and the rest of your rightist 'thinkers' were truly concerned to promote educational achievement for all, then you would be questioning the very basis of capitalist societies priorities.

4. It is entirely obvious that significant educational improvements can only be attained if it is accompanied but much wider social changes - which isn't something that comfortable money grubbers could ever contemplate.

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

1. No you haven't - you've just clouded the issue with anti-capitalist rants.

2. If Brown handed over education to the private sector so everybody can enjoy a top-class education at œ8000 a pop, how is this unfair?

3. There is no chance of us moving away from a capitalist society - but we CAN improve education for the working class.

4. Not going to happen. See above.

ankev1 · June 2007

spire's got you there Redders. The only hole in the argument is that because Brown is inevitably going to spend the money via the state system, the kids will get no improvement in their education.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> anti-capitalist rants.

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

Which anti capitalist rants?

please look up to the stars.. ***

mjones · June 2007

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

The nauseous mjones and spire Fuc k the Poor Alliance never stops rolling does it?

...

The moment for a movement to expropriate you greedy bunch of vicious hyenas is long overdue.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
In another post FM seemed to be complaining about how horrible everyone is to poor idealistic mr redcogs. So I thought I'd draw attention to the level of vitriol coming in the other direction...

The reason redcogs gets a hard time here is that every time someone offers any criticism of his extremely radical views they get accused of being nasty, ladder-kicking, stamping-on-the- poor rightwingers, which does get rather tedious after a while.

What this sort of thing illustrates is the rather arrogant assumption of many on the far left that only they have an ethical position; the assumption that anyone who thinks differently doesn't care about the poor or the environment. Apart from anything else this ignores the simple pragmatic reality that the poor are better off in countries that have successful economies than they are in those that have tried the sort of policies redcogs advocates.

Unknown · June 2007

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

What this sort of thing illustrates is the rather arrogant assumption of many on the far left that only they have an ethical position; <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Their command of the moral high ground is often backed up with threats to confiscate the property of and/or shoot those who disagree with them.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In another post FM seemed to be complaining about how horrible everyone is to poor idealistic mr redcogs. So I thought I'd draw attention to the level of vitriol coming in the other direction...

The reason redcogs gets a hard time here is that every time someone offers any criticism of his extremely radical views they get accused of being nasty, ladder-kicking, stamping-on-the- poor rightwingers, which does get rather tedious after a while.

What this sort of thing illustrates is the rather arrogant assumption of many on the far left that only they have an ethical position; the assumption that anyone who thinks differently doesn't care about the poor or the environment. Apart from anything else this ignores the simple pragmatic reality that the poor are better off in countries that have successful economies than they are in those that have tried the sort of policies redcogs advocates.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Its fair comment to indicate when i've overstepped a rhetorical mark.

But i can't help but notice your failure to address the points that you ommitted from the quotes mjones.

The F uck the Poor Alliance never want to face the downside of the competetive system.

please look up to the stars.. ***

mjones · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In another post FM seemed to be complaining about how horrible everyone is to poor idealistic mr redcogs. So I thought I'd draw attention to the level of vitriol coming in the other direction...

The reason redcogs gets a hard time here is that every time someone offers any criticism of his extremely radical views they get accused of being nasty, ladder-kicking, stamping-on-the- poor rightwingers, which does get rather tedious after a while.

What this sort of thing illustrates is the rather arrogant assumption of many on the far left that only they have an ethical position; the assumption that anyone who thinks differently doesn't care about the poor or the environment. Apart from anything else this ignores the simple pragmatic reality that the poor are better off in countries that have successful economies than they are in those that have tried the sort of policies redcogs advocates.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Its fair comment to indicate when i've overstepped a rhetorical mark.

But i can't help but notice your failure to address the points that you ommitted from the quotes mjones.

The F uck the Poor Alliance never want to face the downside of the competetive system.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You are at it again redcogs- assuming that if someone disagrees with your politics then they can't possibly care about the poor. Your position is rather like a religious believer who assumes that it is impossible for an atheist to have morals.

You see, it is possible to recognise that there is much poverty and injustice in the world, and to want something done about it, without being an extreme socialist. If I thought for one second that the sort of policies you, Gary and NickM advocate would improve the lot of the world's poor then I'd support them as well. As I used to in my more radical but naive youth. But history has shown us that they won't work; and that to implement them requires unacceptable infringements on the rights of the individual. For people in the developing world to get out of poverty they need political freedom, the rule of law, respect for property rights, economic stability, fair trade, access to education etc etc. The sort of things a liberal democracy provides, not a communist state.

passout · August 2007

A child learns as much 'academic' knowledge at home than at school. A child at school can however be very much shaped by their contemporaries/classmates. They learn how to behave, interact and their role within the school, and sometimes wider, community. If they are surrounded by people from disadvantaged backgrounds this will influence their outlook and behaviour either through acceptance or rebellion. Infact teaching standard in 'troubled' schools are often very high - specailised & principled teachers are often attracted to such institutions. But because of the social background & home environment of these kids attainment is poor. Likewise a school in a nice middle class area will probably do well even if the teaching staff is weaker. This is the reality in schools and explains why postcode has has become so important in education. This is clearly problematic and there are no simple solutions. I can't see that getting the private sector involved, which isn't as slick as many think, will help. Private sector teachers don't have experience of teaching the kind of 'troubled' kids we are talking about. Also I can't see how ownership is the key issue. One way to l solve this problem is not by throwing billions at it but by effectively mixing up the less priviliged kids with the more privilged (whose schools do better). This has aleady been done to some extent and it is of course social engineering, we've even seen the lottery selection system empoyed instead the postcode system. So the problem is not really education but society and divisions within it - that's why middle class kids do well. If this is the problem then the only workable solution is social engineering. That said, i suspect that there is no true solution because social engineering usually back fires or just doesn't work. The Labour government has been wasting it's money. Levels of employment & decent housing for the poor are more likely to solve these problems in eduction (long term) than tinkering with school selection procedures. Whatever your view - education reflects what's happening in society and only alters society itself over the long term. There are no quick fixes, just political doctrine to be enforced & points to be scored over the other party. Education & politics don't mix. The politicians should get on with fixing wider economic & social problems and leave us teachers to teach!

nortones2 · August 2007

Well said Passout. I have probably attended more schools than most, due to being an Army brat. Passing the Murray House test (11 plus for civvies!) had little to do with the schools, as there was no coaching. I was fortunate that my family were literate. For those parents not aware of the potential of education, or even hostile to it, their children will face an uphill struggle. Reducing the quality of the state school system by siphoning off the "top" 10% will only further weaken educational standards. Something I think David Cameron has recognised. Solutions, if there are any, are less to do with reinstating grammar schools, or invoking the tired slogan "public bad, private good" than making the "passive class" of parents more ambitious for better standards.

Trembler49 · August 2007

redcogs wrote:

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> anti-capitalist rants.

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

Which anti capitalist rants?

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs, all your rants are anticapitalist, it's the only type of rant you do!!!

richardjallen · August 2007

Governments never stop meddling yet education gets worse all the time.

If the great unwashed were educated who would work at McDognals?

Everyone I've ever met that went to a private school has said they were taught badly . They just have the ability to hide their ignorance while looking down on everyone else.

The whole education system. Lol, no, I'll generalise further. English society from infant school to university removes peoples free thought and laughs at innovation and imagination.

redrobbo · August 2007

Everyone I've ever met that went to a private school has said they were taught badly . They just have the ability to hide their ignorance while looking down on everyone else.

So? Why do they think they went to private school? David Cameron didn't get where he is today by not being able to hide his ignorance , did he?

Stuff the Grammar Schools: they're out-of-date elitist institutions for the lower middle classes .. Why should DC give a toss about them? Maggie didn't.

Loathsome Brown's 'doublethink' on education

Comments

Categories