Mobility.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm saying, if the education system was more equal, then the social mobility (as done by said study) would be improved.

That is just rose tinted as well. Affluency isn't solely dependent on education. I know the daughter of a very well known Right Honerable Lord Justice (because that's how I roll!). She has a degree. She has the same educational background as her husband, some of my friends and even less so than some other friends. How equal do you think she is on the social mobility front purely on the basis that her Daddy has been knighted?

I'm not saying it's the solution. I'm saying it's an improvement.

We all know exceptions to the rule, etc etc. We're talking macro here, about likelihoods.

If there are exceptions then unltimately the system is flawed or unfair as it always a small proportion to bypass the system - a little like what we have now. People have the ability to move up through society - it takes hard work, skill, talent and desire.

I also don't think what you're proposing is an impovement. You want an improvement remove glass ceilings once people leave education.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To a point.

I think that to have schools that are only available to people who can afford a certain amount is not fair, and something to be avoided.

You're right, children are judged on how they perform at school, and that should be appropriately differentiated so that an informed judgement can be made regarding their performance.

In the current system, lacking a certain amount of money restricts the opportunities available - so it's therefore not 'equal opportunities'.

So we abolish fee paying schools. And we prohibit geographic mobility when used by those who can afford to move to the catchment area of a better school from doing so. And then we chuck all the local children into their local school.

You say that will improve social mobility. Even though we will still grade those children during their time at school and when they leave.

I'm now genuinely very curious.

How will that improve social mobility?

Well I'm not sure about prohibiting geographical mobility, but anyway....

Do I really need to explain this to you?

DonDaddyD

Paulie W wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm sorry but i struggle to accept the controversial views of a non-parent telling me, a parent, what is best for all children.

If the poor think the Tories are out of touch then is it not then axiomatically correct to believe a non-parent is out of touch with the plight of a parent and subsequently that of the children.

is it not then by extension difficult to accept the views on these matters of someone whose been a parent for five minutes when set against someone who has say 4 kids all of whom have been to school (and some out the other side)?

Someone who has been a parent for five mins is probably still going to be sitting there amazed at the fact that they've just become a parent. :roll:

Person A has HIV. Person B doesn't have HIV. You want to review the healthcare, access to available information about HIV and support given. Do you go to person A or person B?

What I've found is that when seeking advice from people who have already sent their kids to school, they have good opinions. However, their opinions on the schooling system that may be based on an out of date. So yes, experience and how recent may add weight to the validity of the opinion.

It's like advice from my grandparents about caring for a baby. All fine and I would have no problems leaving my son with them. However, their experience was born from knowledge that is now considered outdated and sometimes wrong.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The great irony here is that if the government were to invest more in social mobility, you probably wouldn't have to go through all this.

I disagree, didn't Labour try this by attempting to make everyone middle class. Look bottom line is no matter how prosperous a country you are going to get areas with more wealth and affluency than others.

Can't disagree with that, society is always going to be hierarchical. The point is that the current system encourages parents in many areas to make a huge financial investment to ensure that their kids are schooled with other children whose parents are able to make that investment. Don't you agree this isn't a desirable situation?

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't believe Rick's opinion on this can ever truly be 'informed' until he can speak from the perspective of a parent.

I'm not a parent either, should I excuse myself from the thread?

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To a point.

I think that to have schools that are only available to people who can afford a certain amount is not fair, and something to be avoided.

You're right, children are judged on how they perform at school, and that should be appropriately differentiated so that an informed judgement can be made regarding their performance.

In the current system, lacking a certain amount of money restricts the opportunities available - so it's therefore not 'equal opportunities'.

So we abolish fee paying schools. And we prohibit geographic mobility when used by those who can afford to move to the catchment area of a better school from doing so. And then we chuck all the local children into their local school.

You say that will improve social mobility. Even though we will still grade those children during their time at school and when they leave.

I'm now genuinely very curious.

How will that improve social mobility?

Well I'm not sure about prohibiting geographical mobility, but anyway....

Do I really need to explain this to you?

You may need to explain it to me. Rich people buy houses in areas with good schools. It's no different to paying to send your child to private school. So if you limited schooling options to the local state school then you would have to limit geographic mobility because people already do rent and buy houses, second houses in areas with better schooling as a way of getting aroudn the private school issue (this was something we discussed with other parents at a local NCT meeting - something we wouldn't have done if we weren't parents).

So by abolishing fee paying schools and doing nothing to the quality, standard of teaching in and funding to state schools. This would somehow improve social mobility. Honestly how?

What do the kids benefit from?

Furthermore weren't you bullied at school for being rich?

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Person A has HIV. Person B doesn't have HIV. You want to review the healthcare, access to available information about HIV and support given. Do you go to person A or person B?

Its not about access to available information though, we're talking about government policy here. If you want to determine which course of treatment is best for a child with cancer, do you ask the parents or an oncologist?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To a point.

I think that to have schools that are only available to people who can afford a certain amount is not fair, and something to be avoided.

You're right, children are judged on how they perform at school, and that should be appropriately differentiated so that an informed judgement can be made regarding their performance.

In the current system, lacking a certain amount of money restricts the opportunities available - so it's therefore not 'equal opportunities'.

So we abolish fee paying schools. And we prohibit geographic mobility when used by those who can afford to move to the catchment area of a better school from doing so. And then we chuck all the local children into their local school.

You say that will improve social mobility. Even though we will still grade those children during their time at school and when they leave.

I'm now genuinely very curious.

How will that improve social mobility?

Well I'm not sure about prohibiting geographical mobility, but anyway....

Do I really need to explain this to you?

Yes please.

So far I have seen

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now, if everyone at said private school went to the 'sh!thole', the performance would go up, blah blah blah, etc etc etc.

which seems to be idealistic wishful thinking.

I'm really curious to understand how you think that effect is going to be achieved, and how, if it is, it is going to lead to greater social mobility.

(And if you don't impose the geographical restriction, you will end up with parents abandoning poorly performing secondaries, eg such as those in Islington, in favour of areas with better performing schools. Of course, once the public see that, you'll have to enforce random allocation of housing and do away with private ownership of homes, but I'm sure that's well within the realms of "World According To Chasey".)

cyclingprop

We were all kids once. Ergo, qualified.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The great irony here is that if the government were to invest more in social mobility, you probably wouldn't have to go through all this.

I disagree, didn't Labour try this by attempting to make everyone middle class. Look bottom line is no matter how prosperous a country you are going to get areas with more wealth and affluency than others.

Can't disagree with that, society is always going to be hierarchical. The point is that the current system encourages parents in many areas to make a huge financial investment to ensure that their kids are schooled with other children whose parents are able to make that investment. Don't you agree this isn't a desirable situation?

I think it is desirable. As I said school isn't just about education. It's about installing social practices, aspirations and notions of success. Some parents will want their child to go to school and mix with other like minded children/families.

Fee paying schools caters for those parents who can afford a price to ensure their child gets the best. Why deny them of this?

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't believe Rick's opinion on this can ever truly be 'informed' until he can speak from the perspective of a parent.

I'm not a parent either, should I excuse myself from the thread?

No, but there is something to be said from direct experience in the subject you are discussing.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Person A has HIV. Person B doesn't have HIV. You want to review the healthcare, access to available information about HIV and support given. Do you go to person A or person B?

Its not about access to available information though, we're talking about government policy here. If you want to determine which course of treatment is best for a child with cancer, do you ask the parents or an oncologist?

You are purposely missing the point. How can you discuss a policy you have no direct investment in? Doesn't Labour keep harping on about out of touch Tories? I mean sure, you can speculate but to get a truly informed opinion at some stage you are going to have to ask and seriously consider the views of the parents. People who are going to be directly affected by these decisions. And yes I think their views are more valid.

Is that not part of the problem with the present Government. Health and Social Care Bill, didn't consult the people it would directly affect. Housing benefits cuts, same thing. Changes to disability benefits, job seekers allowance, etc etc. Now you're telling me that anyone even those with bascially no knowledge and/or experience ir even an attachment to the subject can make an informed opinion/judgement. The notion is silly.

Oh and to answer to your question - as it is actually very related to work that I could/would/did undertake - you would ask both, but you would ask parents who have had direct experience.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The point is that the current system encourages parents in many areas to make a huge financial investment to ensure that their kids are schooled with other children whose parents are able to make that investment. Don't you agree this isn't a desirable situation?

I think it is desirable. As I said school isn't just about education. It's about installing social practices, aspirations and notions of success. Some parents will want their child to go to school and mix with other like minded children/families.

I'd feel the same way. Whats undesirable about the situation I described is the prisoner's dilemma faced by middle class parents. What right minded parent would want to put their kid's future at risk for the sake of the social mobility of others by being the first to break the trend and send their kids to their rather average local school rather than the better one in an area they can barely afford to live in?

What if schools were segregated by ability, then as long as your kid did well in their 11 plus they'd go to the local grammar/atheneum with all the kids from other aspirational families (i.e. Not just the well off). The way the system works now, a child's secondary education is largely dependant on the resources of the family they come from. Thats not right. And it leads to families like yours being put under undue financial stress.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Fee paying schools caters for those parents who can afford a price to ensure their child gets the best. Why deny them of this?

Well, this isn't really about fee paying schools, is it? Theres nothing wrong with sending your kids to one of those. Its about the suggested overall negative effect on social mobility that occurs when parents who can afford to manipulate school catchment area admission rules.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Oh and to answer to your question - as it is actually very related to work that I could/would/did undertake - you would ask both, but you would ask parents who have had direct experience.

As its in your field then, you know that ultimately its the oncologist that makes the final decision.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The point is that the current system encourages parents in many areas to make a huge financial investment to ensure that their kids are schooled with other children whose parents are able to make that investment. Don't you agree this isn't a desirable situation?

I think it is desirable. As I said school isn't just about education. It's about installing social practices, aspirations and notions of success. Some parents will want their child to go to school and mix with other like minded children/families.

I'd feel the same way. Whats undesirable about the situation I described is the prisoner's dilemma faced by middle class parents. What right minded parent would want to put their kid's future at risk for the sake of the social mobility of others by being the first to break the trend and send their kids to their rather average local school rather than the better one in an area they can barely afford to live in?

That's the London bubble. People tend to want everything. They want to live within zone 5, they want THAT house and they want to be near a good school. You can't have everything and sacrifices have to be made. I've seen parents choose the house and area but not the school. I've seen parents choose the school but live in a suspect area.

All I want is to give my son the best I can afford. People often leave the last bit out and stop and 'best'.

What if schools were segregated by ability, then as long as your kid did well in their 11 plus they'd go to the local grammar/atheneum with all the kids from other aspirational families (i.e. Not just the well off). The way the system works now, a child's secondary education is largely dependant on the resources of the family they come from. Thats not right. And it leads to families like yours being put under undue financial stress.

No, I think if you can benefit your childs education through financial means there is nothing wrong with that. I think segregating by ability puts a glass ceiling on children too early. Kids come into their own at different stages of their development and natural growth.

But that doesn't address the issue. As areas of socio-economic depreivation tend to have people with lower aspirations and lower standards of education. Restriciting all who live in those areas to local state schools wouldn't increase social mobility. It would just hinder those willing to make the sacrifices from being able to send their children to private school.

And I'll actually wrap this up as I'm tired now. I know a kid (head boy at a fee paying school) who is top of his class, took some of his GCSE's early. He is going into some sort of Stephen Hawking level of engineering at University - he had his pick of them, some headhunted him. As long as he doesn't burn out his life is set for the riches his talent and natural ability should demand. He lives in a flat in a so-so area with his Gran, Mum, Dad, Sister. It's a little cramped. He doesn't have the privledges of his peers. He also has to trek to his school, it is far. But he does it every morning as he is intelligent enough to see the long term gain.

Now given his roots, the sacrifices his parents made has afforded him a great measure of social mobility. What Rick and others are proposing not only hinders the rich (which seems, disgustingly so, the only intention these days) it hinders the poor who have the foresight, ability and desire to use that very same system to their advantage as well.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Oh and to answer to your question - as it is actually very related to work that I could/would/did undertake - you would ask both, but you would ask parents who have had direct experience.

As its in your field then, you know that ultimately its the oncologist that makes the final decision.

His decision will be based on the feedback of the patients, carers - in this case parents.

You cannot escape the fact that direct experience is a driving factor and has a direct influence on decision making.

Bottomline, it is not wrong to tell Rick that he may feel differently when and if he actually has children.

EKE_38BPM

notsoblue wrote:

...What right minded parent would want to put their kid's future at risk for the sake of the social mobility of others by being the first to break the trend...

Mr & Mrs Chasey?

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

...What right minded parent would want to put their kid's future at risk for the sake of the social mobility of others by being the first to break the trend...

Mr & Mrs Chasey?

And wasn't he bullied at that school. Won't answer why though...

rml380z

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Oh and to answer to your question - as it is actually very related to work that I could/would/did undertake - you would ask both, but you would ask parents who have had direct experience.

As its in your field then, you know that ultimately its the oncologist that makes the final decision.

His decision will be based on the feedback of the patients, carers - in this case parents.

You cannot escape the fact that direct experience is a driving factor and has a direct influence on decision making.

Bottomline, it is not wrong to tell Rick that he may feel differently when and if he actually has children.

A hospital is a bad analogy for a school; a prison is a better one.
You don't ask the criminals how to run the prisons because they have a vested interest. Same with parents and schools. Parents are not more qualified to comment; their biased (and often irrational) opinions make their views bear less weight. :twisted:

DonDaddyD

Right so we are comparing - I hope in jest - servants of scoeity against those, most of whom, who have chosen to reject society and its laws....

Patients especially those with long term conditions or those who have to stay/live in hospitals are and should be consulted on how the hospital is run because they have a vested interest.

EKE_38BPM

rml380z wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Oh and to answer to your question - as it is actually very related to work that I could/would/did undertake - you would ask both, but you would ask parents who have had direct experience.

As its in your field then, you know that ultimately its the oncologist that makes the final decision.

His decision will be based on the feedback of the patients, carers - in this case parents.

You cannot escape the fact that direct experience is a driving factor and has a direct influence on decision making.

Bottomline, it is not wrong to tell Rick that he may feel differently when and if he actually has children.

A hospital is a bad analogy for a school; a prison is a better one.
You don't ask the criminals how to run the prisons because they have a vested interest. Same with parents and schools. Parents are not more qualified to comment; their biased (and often irrational) opinions make their views bear less weight. :twisted:

Very good point!
A friend of a friend was dying of a terminal form of cancer. A drug was able to extend their life, but ultimately this person would die of the cancer and the drug cost a fortune, something like £50k per month, which the NHS wouldn't fund.
If you asked the parents: "Of course the NHS should fund the drug. Life is precious and in the big scheme of things the £50k/month is a drop in the ocean compared to the NHS budget."
If you ask the purse keepers of the NHS: "The drug is very expensive for what would only be a temporary extension to the life of the patient. It is not feasible to fund the treatment of the patient with the drug."

The parents spent all of their life savings and went into debt to buy the drug. A few months later they were heartbroken and heavily in debt.

The government are there to make the big decisions for the children of the nation.
Parents are there to do the best for their kids.

rml380z

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right so we are comparing - I hope in jest - servants of scoeity against those, most of whom, who have chosen to reject society and its laws....

Patients especially those with long term conditions or those who have to stay/live in hospitals are and should be consulted on how the hospital is run because they have a vested interest.

I think that's in reply to my comment.

No, I'm clearly not saying people in hospitals (or parents) are criminals, and I wasn't expecting people to leap to such a ridiculous conclusion. My comment was not in jest, and my analogy still holds.

I was, however, saying that people in government-run institutions have a vested interest in how those institutions are run for their own benefit and so, consequently, their opinion is less neutral than people who have no such emotional investment. Since we're talking here about how the whole school system is run for the benefit of all, the opinon of parents counts for less when it comes to schools.

Cleat Eastwood

Rick Chasey wrote:

In theory, education should be the great leveller.

In reality, education is the cornerstone of the deeply entrenched UK class system.

and in some ways the class system has dictated the education available to all.

If you haven't already read it have a look at malcolm gladwells the outliers - particularly chapter 3 about education and individual merit and how background affects both - the book is both chilling and positive - highly recommend it - heres a link to a pdf version

http://247best.weebly.com/uploads/5/5/2 ... uccess.pdf

flimflam_machine

EKE_38BPM wrote:

The government are there to make the big decisions for the children of the nation.
Parents are there to do the best for their kids.

^This. This is why the oncologist analogy is not valid. When one oncologist is considering the case of a single child their aim is exactly the same as that of the child's parents i.e., the health and welfare of that one child. Macroscopic questions of social mobility and education are not analagous to medical and welfare decisions about a single child. A better analogy would be a panel of ocologists and epidemiologists deciding that, in order to reduce overall cancer rates, all children should conform to a specific diet and domestic environment. If some parents felt that their child was already at a very low risk of cancer and that these restrictions would impair their child's future prospects they would object and very likely not comply.

I can't think of any specific objective reason why one of these views is "better" than the other i.e., why a disinterested view is specfically better than a heavily invested one, when both parties have the interest of a child/children at heart.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To a point.

I think that to have schools that are only available to people who can afford a certain amount is not fair, and something to be avoided.

You're right, children are judged on how they perform at school, and that should be appropriately differentiated so that an informed judgement can be made regarding their performance.

In the current system, lacking a certain amount of money restricts the opportunities available - so it's therefore not 'equal opportunities'.

So we abolish fee paying schools. And we prohibit geographic mobility when used by those who can afford to move to the catchment area of a better school from doing so. And then we chuck all the local children into their local school.

You say that will improve social mobility. Even though we will still grade those children during their time at school and when they leave.

I'm now genuinely very curious.

How will that improve social mobility?

Well I'm not sure about prohibiting geographical mobility, but anyway....

Do I really need to explain this to you?

Yes please.

Ideally, you want people to be judged on what they have achieved - not how much cash their parents have. That's eaiest when it's a level playing field - where every child has the same opportunity to achive - and be given the same opportunities if they perform.

In reality, what happens is people are judged by their background - of which school is an indicator - alongside the performance. Now, I have a problem with that, since that's literally beyond your control. You can't decide who your parents are, nor can you decide their socio-economic status so why should it affect your opportunities? It shouldn't.

It's well known that some private institutions, which not everyone can send their children to, open MORE opportunities than state institutions. That's unfair.

It's utterly simple. For it to be fairer to people, so that they are judged on the merit of their school performance, it makes sense to give each child the same opportunity. Having schools which you pay for, means that is no longer the case.

I find it difficult to see how you can't see that - unless you're being deliberately obtuse!

DonDaddyD

rml380z wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right so we are comparing - I hope in jest - servants of scoeity against those, most of whom, who have chosen to reject society and its laws....

Patients especially those with long term conditions or those who have to stay/live in hospitals are and should be consulted on how the hospital is run because they have a vested interest.

I think that's in reply to my comment.

No, I'm clearly not saying people in hospitals (or parents) are criminals, and I wasn't expecting people to leap to such a ridiculous conclusion. My comment was not in jest, and my analogy still holds.

Where in my response did I state that you were suggesting people in hospitals (or parents) are criminals?

Flim_Flam wrote:

^This. This is why the oncologist analogy is not valid. When one oncologist is considering the case of a single child their aim is exactly the same as that of the child's parents i.e., the health and welfare of that one child. Macroscopic questions of social mobility and education are not analagous to medical and welfare decisions about a single child. A better analogy would be a panel of ocologists and epidemiologists deciding that, in order to reduce overall cancer rates, all children should conform to a specific diet and domestic environment. If some parents felt that their child was already at a very low risk of cancer and that these restrictions would impair their child's future prospects they would object and very likely not comply.

I can't think of any specific objective reason why one of these views is "better" than the other i.e., why a disinterested view is specfically better than a heavily invested one, when both parties have the interest of a child/children at heart.

But Rick's initial assertion was that you should send your child to state school to benefit the system. He then cited that his parents did the same to him. He was talking from his singular experience. So the retort was "you may think differently when you're a parent". That is not wrong.

He then expanded the discussion [back] to a macroscopic one about improving social mobility. When these policies are implemented consultations are held (if done properly) and they take into account a panel of professionals (a panel of ocologists or in this case teachers/education professionals) and geo-socio-demographic spread of the people directly affected by the policy i.e. parents from all backgrounds. While Rick's views are valid in as much as they are a view, I don't believe his perspective or experience is truly qualified to fully consider the full spectrum of influencing factors that will affect the people effected by what he is suggesting.

He has spent five minutes and a snap shot thinking on this from a railroad liberal stance.

So sure, as a discussion piece of a cycling website I'm entertaining him and his 'World according to Chasey' ideology. But in real terms I'd treat this with as much disdain as the the people directly effected by but routinely excluded from the Health and Social Care Bill.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

And I'll actually wrap this up as I'm tired now. I know a kid (head boy at a fee paying school) who is top of his class, took some of his GCSE's early. He is going into some sort of Stephen Hawking level of engineering at University - he had his pick of them, some headhunted him. As long as he doesn't burn out his life is set for the riches his talent and natural ability should demand. He lives in a flat in a so-so area with his Gran, Mum, Dad, Sister. It's a little cramped. He doesn't have the privledges of his peers. He also has to trek to his school, it is far. But he does it every morning as he is intelligent enough to see the long term gain.

Now given his roots, the sacrifices his parents made has afforded him a great measure of social mobility. What Rick and others are proposing not only hinders the rich (which seems, disgustingly so, the only intention these days) it hinders the poor who have the foresight, ability and desire to use that very same system to their advantage as well.

A couple of thoughts - the main thing propelling this kid to success is his natural ability and the motivation that his parents have obviously instilled in him. The school is helping, but so would a decent state school - they are not all, or even mostly, rubbish, despite what private school brochures and NCT chats might suggest.

Secondly, Rick's and others' suggestions are not about hindering the rich, but about trying to ensure that this kid's family don't have to believe that they are doing something wrong by sending their child to a state school.

One last thing: if he's that good, it's quite likely that a bursary is paying his fees.

DonDaddyD

A couple of thoughts - the main thing propelling this kid to success is his natural ability and the motivation that his parents have obviously instilled in him. The school is helping, but so would a decent state school - they are not all, or even mostly, rubbish, despite what private school brochures and NCT chats might suggest.

No, a decent state school wouldn't help as much as a fee paying school. Again, we are just talking about schools as a provider of education. Fee paying schools tend to have a higher calibre of student, students from families who aren't chavs and share my social values/aspirations or (to put it better) students whose parents place an emphasism on education and extracurricular activites. (i) Fee-paying schools have more funding and smaller classrooms so the school, its facilities and the teachers are better equipped at delivering education. (ii) Parents from low socio-economic backgrounds or living in deprived areas tend to be uninterested or don't have the time to support said extracurricular activities.

With the latter in mind we are also avoiding the conumdrum that areas of low socio-economic wealth (lets say ilford, Camberwell and Tottenham) are fastly becoming places where even the middleclasses are struggling to afford. Those areas aren't exactly blessed with the most productive and positive in society. The schools in those areas are also mostly failing due to the aformentioned lack of funding and you have to question the types of children that attend that school, their parents and their parents background - often it's not about wealth but about social values an if poor social values is the wider culture of the school how that will impact of the child. So instead of potentially sending a child with the very worst living in the area, the alternative is to send them to a fee-paying school.

None of what Ricks is talking about even been touches upon this. It reads like "Lets abolish fee paying schools because that makes education fair for people unable to afford fee paying schools. " It doesn't look at the shortcomings of state schools, the financial, social and cultural problems of the surrounding area that have a direct influence on the school or the reason why parents are fighting tooth and nail to keep their kids out of the state system.

It assumes that Camberwell is as affluent as Dulwich. Mitcham is as affluent as Wimbledon and the people living within share the same aspirational values and place the same value on education. They, in general, do not. These factors have an influence on the quality of schooling through the quality and instilled values of the pupils. This will be a constant regardless of if you abolisih fee-paying schools. It is why fee-paying schools, in part, exist.

We've seen this with LiTs own amazement that most state schools don't provide swimming and that most kids are uninterested in after school clubs, or they are simply not provided. Whereas at her fee paying school the pupils there hated having to go back home.

Now I know the bubble of private school has it's own negatives and certainly in my day there were alternative options. However, and assuming there are no good state-schools where I live then given the divide between afluent and non-affluent is further apart now I'd rather see my child in the bubble, while I, as a parent, keep them grounded.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

A couple of thoughts - the main thing propelling this kid to success is his natural ability and the motivation that his parents have obviously instilled in him. The school is helping, but so would a decent state school - they are not all, or even mostly, rubbish, despite what private school brochures and NCT chats might suggest.

No, a decent state school wouldn't help as much as a fee paying school. Again, we are just talking about schools as a provider of education. Fee paying schools tend to have a higher calibre of student, students from families who aren't chavs and share my social values/aspirations or (to put it better) students whose parents place an emphasism on education and extracurricular activites. (i) Fee-paying schools have more funding and smaller classrooms so the school, its facilities and the teachers are better equipped at delivering education. (ii) Parents from low socio-economic backgrounds or living in deprived areas tend to be uninterested or don't have the time to support said extracurricular activities.

With the latter in mind we are also avoiding the conumdrum that areas of low socio-economic wealth (lets say ilford, Camberwell and Tottenham) are fastly becoming places where even the middleclasses are struggling to afford. Those areas aren't exactly blessed with the most productive and positive in society. The schools in those areas are also mostly failing due to the aformentioned lack of funding and you have to question the types of children that attend that school, their parents and their parents background - often it's not about wealth but about social values an if poor social values is the wider culture of the school how that will impact of the child. So instead of potentially sending a child with the very worst living in the area, the alternative is to send them to a fee-paying school.

None of what Ricks is talking about even been touches upon this. It reads like "Lets abolish fee paying schools because that makes education fair for people unable to afford fee paying schools. " It doesn't look at the shortcomings of state schools, the financial, social and cultural problems of the surrounding area that have a direct influence on the school or the reason why parents are fighting tooth and nail to keep their kids out of the state system.

It assumes that Camberwell is as affluent as Dulwich. Mitcham is as affluent as Wimbledon and the people living within share the same aspirational values and place the same value on education. They, in general, do not. These factors have an influence on the quality of schooling through the quality and instilled values of the pupils. This will be a constant regardless of if you abolisih fee-paying schools. It is why fee-paying schools, in part, exist.

We've seen this with LiTs own amazement that most state schools don't provide swimming and that most kids are uninterested in after school clubs, or they are simply not provided. Whereas at her fee paying school the pupils there hated having to go back home.

Now I know the bubble of private school has it's own negatives and certainly in my day there were alternative options. However, and assuming there are no good state-schools where I live then given the divide between afluent and non-affluent is further apart now I'd rather see my child in the bubble, while I, as a parent, keep them grounded.

You seem convinced that state schools as a whole are a poor second best. I really don't share this view, and I'm not sure I'm going to change your mind through the medium of BikeRadar. Your experience of state education is clearly very different from mine, so I can see where that view has come from.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

You seem convinced that state schools as a whole are a poor second best. I really don't share this view, and I'm not sure I'm going to change your mind through the medium of BikeRadar. Your experience of state education is clearly very different from mine, so I can see where that view has come from.

Right, and you'll understand that the gulf between wealth and poverty has increased in the 15 years since I left school (more in your case) and that by extension the gulf between schooling has increased between fee-paying and state school.

There are some decent state schools if you can afford to live in the right area.
There are some good grammar schools, assuming your child can get in.
There are great fee-paying schools, assuming your child can get it and you can afford the cost.

It may work out cheaper to live in an area you can afford - say Mitcham, Camberwell, Brixton, Tottenham, Croydon, Norbury, Streatham, South Norwood (where there are no good state schools) and pay for your childs education.

Or better yet, you tell me 5 - 10 good state schools in your area including your catchment area?

Assisted places - would help the social mobility of children from poorer households. (Labour got rid of that).

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You seem convinced that state schools as a whole are a poor second best. I really don't share this view, and I'm not sure I'm going to change your mind through the medium of BikeRadar. Your experience of state education is clearly very different from mine, so I can see where that view has come from.

Right, and you'll understand that the gulf between wealth and poverty has increased in the 15 years since I left school (more in your case) and that by extension the gulf between schooling has increased between fee-paying and state school.

There are some decent state schools if you can afford to live in the right area.
There are some good grammar schools, assuming your child can get in.
There are great fee-paying schools, assuming your child can get it and you can afford the cost.

It may work out cheaper to live in an area you can afford - say Mitcham, Camberwell, Brixton, Tottenham, Croydon, Norbury, Streatham, South Norwood (where there are no good state schools) and pay for your childs education.

Or better yet, you tell me 5 - 10 good state schools in your area including your catchment area?

Assisted places - would help the social mobility of children from poorer households. (Labour got rid of that).

My point was more that I think you over-estimate how good private education is. Here's a link to Wimbledon Common Prep - just the first one on the Google search - fees of nearly £8K a year for a 'satisfactory' and in some places 'inadequate' primary education.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/102690

I'd be hoping for at least 'good' if I'm paying extra.

And to answer your last question:

Greenshaw High School
Cheam High School
St Philomena's
Stanley Park High School

I'll maybe find some more later - you didn't think I ended up here by chance

DonDaddyD

I will concede one thing. Having done the research it appears, when reviewing the Offstead reports, that state Primary schools in London are actually good.

It's mostly the secondary schools I take issue with.