Mobility.

veronese68

Greg66 wrote:

There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

This is very true. Both of my kids go to Catholic schools. I'm not particularly religious, but they were the better schools and we meet the entrance criteria. Why wouldn't I send my kids to the best school they can get into?
I seem to recall Tony Blair sent his kid to a famous Catholic school. I know a couple of kids that go there, I know their entrance criteria. Tony Blair's kid did not meet those criteria. How very odd.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

'rentals had the opportunity to send me to private school, like all the other kids from a similar economic background. All the kids of my fathers colleagues went etc. The local state school had poor reports. On principle that I should got the local school, I went to the local school.

They had the choice (unlike most) and choice against the private school.

I don't think your parents decision is the norm in Europe though. But then to be fair, that decision may not really be necessary. Perhaps the streaming of children in NL means that schools are categorised by the ability of the pupils rather than their location. So parents aren't faced with sending their kids to either mixed ability comprehensives or public school. I'm not sure though, I was a kid in the system rather than a parent who evaluated it all properly.

I think we're also putting the cart before the horse: those other European countries are less socially stratified than the UK in the first place, so there is less reason to want to be a social climber, and therefore less need for all the buying your way into a catchment area or pretending you are a devout church-goer to get into the 'right' school.

<lights fuse> There may also be less tolerance of rubbish teaching. To hear some people speak, you'd think that the teaching profession is, unlike any other, magically devoid of any substandard performance, and that all teachers are but a few steps from beatification.

cyclingprop

rjsterry wrote:

To hear some people speak, you'd think that the teaching profession is, unlike any other, magically devoid of any substandard performance, and that all teachers are but a few steps from beatification.

Four commas in a single sentence really acceptable?

cyclingprop

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

My parents did. It's the way it's done elsewhere in Europe, and they have better social mobility figures.

Really? I doubt that voluntary demographic mixing is the reason for better social mobility in northern europe... What makes you say that?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

'rentals had the opportunity to send me to private school, like all the other kids from a similar economic background. All the kids of my fathers colleagues went etc. The local state school had poor reports. On principle that I should got the local school, I went to the local school.

They had the choice (unlike most) and choice against the private school.

And yet you still ended up with a questionable taste for coloured jeans.

rjsterry

cyclingprop wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

To hear some people speak, you'd think that the teaching profession is, unlike any other, magically devoid of any substandard performance, and that all teachers are but a few steps from beatification.

Four commas in a single sentence really acceptable?

By current fashions maybe not, but you should see what Dickens got up to. For example in Martin Chuzzlewit:

"It is a notable circumstance that in these later times, many Chuzzlewits, being unsuccessful in other pursuits, have, without the smallest rational hope of enriching themselves, or any conceivable reason, set up as coal merchants; and have, month after month, continued gloomily to watch a small stock of coals, without in any one instance negotiating with a purchaser." ch. 1, p. 2.

BTW, anyone spot Paxman correcting the American commentator's grammar on Newsnight last night? Teehee.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

To hear some people speak, you'd think that the teaching profession is, unlike any other, magically devoid of any substandard performance, and that all teachers are but a few steps from beatification.

Four commas in a single sentence really acceptable?

By current fashions maybe not, but you should see what Dickens got up to. For example in Martin Chuzzlewit:

"It is a notable circumstance that in these later times, many Chuzzlewits, being unsuccessful in other pursuits, have, without the smallest rational hope of enriching themselves, or any conceivable reason, set up as coal merchants; and have, month after month, continued gloomily to watch a small stock of coals, without in any one instance negotiating with a purchaser." ch. 1, p. 2.

Only works if you rate Dickens . But yes, people do seem to have a fear of comas and long sentences.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

'rentals had the opportunity to send me to private school, like all the other kids from a similar economic background. All the kids of my fathers colleagues went etc. The local state school had poor reports. On principle that I should got the local school, I went to the local school.

They had the choice (unlike most) and choice against the private school.

I don't think your parents decision is the norm in Europe though. But then to be fair, that decision may not really be necessary. Perhaps the streaming of children in NL means that schools are categorised by the ability of the pupils rather than their location. So parents aren't faced with sending their kids to either mixed ability comprehensives or public school. I'm not sure though, I was a kid in the system rather than a parent who evaluated it all properly.

In NL the rule is, AFAIK, you go to your local primary school, and then the nearest secondary school. If there are different schools for different strata, you go to the nearest one for your strata.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

, people do seem to have a fear of comas

Isn't that normal?

rick_chasey

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

It seems that as a country we've decided that social mobility just isn't a priority.

Think that's the jist of it.

It's not seen as desirable.

I think people are seeing efforts to encourage social mobility as a threat to their own interests.

This is absolutely true.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

It seems that as a country we've decided that social mobility just isn't a priority.

Think that's the jist of it.

It's not seen as desirable.

I think people are seeing efforts to encourage social mobility as a threat to their own interests.

This is absolutely true.

Well, they are. We can't all be top quartile earners. Exclusivity and being one-up on the Joneses is at least as important to some parents as whether their child achieves their academic potential. If everyone has access to the 'best' education, then one loses one's advantage over the proles .

The other thing is that social mobility is not self-reinforcing. Say you are a child from tough circumstances, but manage to excel and end up as a high court judge; chances are you'll want to use your success and connections to help your children have the best start they can. There are unfortunately very few people like EKE's contemporary who use their success to benefit others as well.

DonDaddyD

More to come!

Greg66 wrote:

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

+1

Rick Chasey wrote:

'rentals had the opportunity to send me to private school, like all the other kids from a similar economic background. All the kids of my fathers colleagues went etc. The local state school had poor reports. On principle that I should got the local school, I went to the local school.

They had the choice (unlike most) and choice against the private school.

I have no idea what schools are like in the blissful land that you come from. However, if that decision was made by a parent living in Central London. Then at best I would call it a poor decision and worst (and probably closer to the matter) it's poor parenting.

I wouldn't gamble with your life to make a point. So why the hell would I gamble with a life that actually matters to me?

Honestly, you go to a state school in London and tell me that given the choice you would honestly place your child's future in a substandard school as oppose to a successful one.

Further more, school isn't just about education. It is about conditioning the child to norms and acceptable behaviour in the wider society. Schools install aspirations, establish an ideology of what is success and broaden horizon's for pupils. Bottom line it is also about who your kids mix with.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

More to come!

Greg66 wrote:

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

+1

Never been keen on this logic > You don't have children, ergo your opinion is worth less.

Doesn't work like that.

SimonAH

1) You cannot and must not prevent those with means from giving the best they possibly can to their children. This will almost always be better than that which is provided by the state, it just will be. Trying to prevent it would be immoral and purely for the self gratification of political ideology. The reason we sweat our brows is to provide for our offspring and our genetic legacy - Darwinism at it's most basic.

2) If you really want children from less well off backgrounds to do better in school and really have a chance of progressing to the highest levels then you must stream. It's unpopular these days, but bright and motivated kids need to be taught with other bright and motivated kids. The idea of mixing all abilities and backgrounds together is fine from a social engineering point of view but a bloody disaster from any other standpoint. It is an unpalatable but indisputable fact that in almost every single case (yes, yes, I am sure that there are a handful of super-supervised academic experiments where the poorly performing and poorly behaved students improved by being mixed with fresh faced and enquiring students) the damaged, poorly behaved and (unpolitical adjective coming up) frankly stupid kids will drag down the achievers as they suck up resources far exceeding their quota.

I'm sure the above will have a lot frothing at the mouth, but hey I tells it like I sees it.

SmellTheGlove

Too much is taken for granted in the social mobility debate. The first is that anyone can be so mobile as to become a member of the aristocracy. If you’re an aristo, you’re born that way, that’s simple fact. The rest of us have more or less, according to what we aspire to, what we work for, how much we borrow etc.
If no one else can get into the aristo bracket then what is the value of social mobility, which is in any case from my observation, nearly always assumed to be a one-way shift if it happens at all. Can an aristo become working class? I think not.
What this busted debate actually does very nicely is shore up existing entrenched mechanisms of power and control; in the UK today these are everything to do with the maintenance of ultra-wealth by a diminishing number of people sometimes known as the 1%. Serving up an illusion of social mobility gives people something to joust over at lunchtime; it does not exist in any reality.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

More to come!

Greg66 wrote:

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

+1

Never been keen on this logic > You don't have children, ergo your opinion is worth less.

Doesn't work like that.

I think he's just saying that you priorities change, and your principles may be modified.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

More to come!

Greg66 wrote:

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

+1

Never been keen on this logic > You don't have children, ergo your opinion is worth less.

Doesn't work like that.

I think he's just saying that you priorities change, and your principles may be modified.

So I should put my opinions on the matter on hold, just in case?

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

1) You cannot and must not prevent those with means from giving the best they possibly can to their children. This will almost always be better than that which is provided by the state, it just will be. Trying to prevent it would be immoral and purely for the self gratification of political ideology. The reason we sweat our brows is to provide for our offspring and our genetic legacy - Darwinism at it's most basic.

2) If you really want children from less well off backgrounds to do better in school and really have a chance of progressing to the highest levels then you must stream. It's unpopular these days, but bright and motivated kids need to be taught with other bright and motivated kids. The idea of mixing all abilities and backgrounds together is fine from a social engineering point of view but a bloody disaster from any other standpoint. It is an unpalatable but indisputable fact that in almost every single case (yes, yes, I am sure that there are a handful of super-supervised academic experiments where the poorly performing and poorly behaved students improved by being mixed with fresh faced and enquiring students) the damaged, poorly behaved and (unpolitical adjective coming up) frankly stupid kids will drag down the achievers as they suck up resources far exceeding their quota.

I'm sure the above will have a lot frothing at the mouth, but hey I tells it like I sees it.

My state school, and every other I know of had 'sets' for different classes.

So you could be top set in English, middle set in Maths and Bottom set in Science.

Streaming does happen in the 'core' subjects - at least, it does in the neck of the woods I was brought up.


---

Re the first point - it's about giving every child as good an opportunity as possible right? Not just yours.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

More to come!

Greg66 wrote:

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

+1

Never been keen on this logic > You don't have children, ergo your opinion is worth less.

Doesn't work like that.

I think he's just saying that you priorities change, and your principles may be modified.

So I should put my opinions on the matter on hold, just in case?

No, but you might want to recognise that your opinion isn't as well informed as it may be in the future.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

More to come!

Greg66 wrote:

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

+1

Never been keen on this logic > You don't have children, ergo your opinion is worth less.

Doesn't work like that.

You think differently when you have children. Not because you have children but because biologically and through circumstance your priorities change.

A person who has kids is likely to have different opinions to the ones he had when he didn't have kids.

ETA: Point in case, have you ever gone to a school with the view of sending your children there , whilst knowing that you could afford to send them somewhere better? No? Then sure your opinion is valid, it is just not directly influenced by the circumstances of the actual situation and therefore (and potentially) subject to change.

daviesee

cyclingprop wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

To hear some people speak, you'd think that the teaching profession is, unlike any other, magically devoid of any substandard performance, and that all teachers are but a few steps from beatification.

Four commas in a single sentence really acceptable?

Pedant alert.
If you are going to criticise other's work shouldn't you ensure that your comments are grammatically correct?

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

More to come!

Greg66 wrote:

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

+1

Never been keen on this logic > You don't have children, ergo your opinion is worth less.

Doesn't work like that.

I think he's just saying that you priorities change, and your principles may be modified.

So I should put my opinions on the matter on hold, just in case?

No, but you might want to recognise that your opinion isn't as well informed as it may be in the future.

If I'm following your logic right, that a well informed opinion is more credible - that my opinion is less credible because I don't have children? Come off it. Argue the argument, not the provenance of the person giving it.

SimonAH

DonDaddyD wrote:

A person who has kids is likely to have different opinions to the ones he had when he didn't have kids.

Especially with regard to sh1t and vomit :-D

No, seriously, your mindset is entirely different when you are responsible for a child.

......or of course you could be just one of those fathers who doesn't give a monkeys and moves on to the next girl leaving fatherless children scattered in his wake. (Not that for a second I am suggesting you would)

bails87

I think there's obviously two seperate discussions.

1. What's best for all children and the country as a whole.

2. What's best, given the current system, for my child.

It is perfectly possible to discuss 1 without having kids, but when you have kids you're likely to put 1 lower in your priorities and put 2 higher up.

So to say "I'm not going to discuss 1 with you because you don't have kids" is a bit silly. To argue that you'd stick to your theoretical principles and disadvantage your child for the good of society is something entirely different.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

If I'm following your logic right, that a well informed opinion is more credible - that my opinion is less credible because I don't have children? Come off it. Argue the argument, not the provenance of the person giving it.

Now you're just being young.

You have opinions on how you will raise your children. Are these subject to change? Why are they subject to change?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

More to come!

Greg66 wrote:

Anyway, you're still a long way off having kids. I will predict that once you have done so, and have visited a few schools for Rick Jnr/Rickella to attend, your views on education will shift. There are *very* few parents willing to compromise their children's education to make a point of principle that no one will notice, and will not make any difference to anything.

+1

Never been keen on this logic > You don't have children, ergo your opinion is worth less.

Doesn't work like that.

I think he's just saying that you priorities change, and your principles may be modified.

So I should put my opinions on the matter on hold, just in case?

No, but you might want to recognise that your opinion isn't as well informed as it may be in the future.

If I'm following your logic right, that a well informed opinion is more credible - that my opinion is less credible because I don't have children? Come off it. Argue the argument, not the provenance of the person giving it.

Well, I tried that earlier, but you based your position on a dubious causative link and a statistical sample of 1.

Let's put to one side the apparent chip you have on your shoulder about not being taken seriously. No one is saying that it follows axiomatically that an opinion based on personal experience is always to be given more weight than one based on abstraction. However, in general terms, most people would give the former opinion more weight. On a subject as emotive as "should you do what's best for your children or best for your principles?", I strongly suspect that many people would regard the opinion of a parent on what a person should do as carrying more weight than that of a non-parent.

Much as I enjoy these "debates", I have some work to do today.

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

1) You cannot and must not prevent those with means from giving the best they possibly can to their children. This will almost always be better than that which is provided by the state, it just will be. Trying to prevent it would be immoral and purely for the self gratification of political ideology. The reason we sweat our brows is to provide for our offspring and our genetic legacy - Darwinism at it's most basic.

2) If you really want children from less well off backgrounds to do better in school and really have a chance of progressing to the highest levels then you must stream. It's unpopular these days, but bright and motivated kids need to be taught with other bright and motivated kids. The idea of mixing all abilities and backgrounds together is fine from a social engineering point of view but a bloody disaster from any other standpoint. It is an unpalatable but indisputable fact that in almost every single case (yes, yes, I am sure that there are a handful of super-supervised academic experiments where the poorly performing and poorly behaved students improved by being mixed with fresh faced and enquiring students) the damaged, poorly behaved and (unpolitical adjective coming up) frankly stupid kids will drag down the achievers as they suck up resources far exceeding their quota.

I'm sure the above will have a lot frothing at the mouth, but hey I tells it like I sees it.

No frothing, but what the above avoids dealing with is what happens to those who don't make the cut. The problem with the grammar school system is that it divided people into successes and failures on the basis of a single exam at the age of 11. No chance of having another go later on, no allowances for illness or family issues. Combine that with the don't-get-ideas-above-your-station that used to pass for careers advice, and which side of the divide you were had/has a very strong correlation with your future success in life.

It's perfectly possible to have the best of both worlds: streaming within a single school to allow teaching appropriate to the level of ability, without the warped view of the world that selective schools give. This also gives the flexibility to deal with a child who excels in some areas, but struggles in others, as most do.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Stuff..


On a subject as emotive as "should you do what's best for your children or best for your principles?", I strongly suspect that many people would regard the opinion of a parent on what a person should do as carrying more weight than that of a non-parent.

I think that's where we're diverging then. I'm not particularly interested in what's best for your child, or indeed, my hypothetical child. I'm interested what's best for all children.

Let me put it this way. Are you comfortable with the UK being one of the least socially mobile 'developed' nations?

I'm not.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Now you're just being young.

Teehee.

SimonAH

Oh I agree with you entirely rjsterry. I am not advocating grammar / secondary modern splits (although the really unruly cause damage outside the classroom as well as inside it) but streaming within schools and the ability to rise through the streams with achievment.

Unfortunately some kids will be in the bottom streams, but that is the way it is.