Mobility.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

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.

I think its astonishing that people view the argument for social mobility as hindering the rich. And its kinda sad that those worrying the most about it are those who can barely afford fee paying schools but think that its a golden ticket for their offspring.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

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

Indeed - the state school 6th form I went to had better performance stats than the 6th forms of the local private schools at the time. Didn't stop quite a few parents forking out £12k a year.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

I think its astonishing that people view the argument for social mobility as hindering the rich. And its kinda sad that those worrying the most about it are those who can barely afford fee paying schools but think that its a golden ticket for their offspring.

I take offense to that as it directly insults my life experience. Living in Croydon, I had the option of Stanley Tech, Ashburton, Hayley Manor (sp), Saint Mary, Harris Tech, St Joseph. None of which were or are comparable to Alleyns where my best mate went to. There are those who can barely afford fee-paying shcools, but believe and know it's the best option for their children when weighing up all the options avaiable to them - when you factor in where they live.

Improving social mobility, IMO, isn't about restricting options (such as abolishing fee-paying schools) but increasing the opportunity for alternate options. So, as oppose to insisting that all people must attend state school, by way of banning fee-paying schools, give poor people, should the child warrant it, the ability to attend the fee-paying schools.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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

Indeed - the state school 6th form I went to had better performance stats than the 6th forms of the local private schools at the time. Didn't stop quite a few parents forking out £12k a year.

1. Where was this Rick.

2. RJS, St Philomena's is a catholic school.

OK you got me. How much are the average house prices around the catchment area for those schools? Are they accessible tro people (poor, low income families) who would really benefit increased social mobility? Would you say the surrounding area could be categorised as socio-econmically deprived?

Not everyone can, or can afford to live there. So what about the rest of London?

rolf_f

My understanding was that if your child is bright and motivated, it really doesn't make much difference what school they go to (though it must make some difference - just not much) - however, a dim and unmotivated child will benefit from a better school (which may or may not be fee paying).

So, pay up if your genes are a bit crap

DonDaddyD

Rolf F wrote:

My understanding was that if your child is bright and motivated, it really doesn't make much difference what school they go to

I generally, and through experience, know this to be widely incorrect. You highly bright and motivated child is sitting in a classroom with disruptive pupils who aren't really raised to value education. OR he is sitting in a classroom with like minded children? Which classroom is he going to achieve more in?

This is why I think the discussion cannot go further until it acknowledges the influence the surrounding area has on the school.

It stands to reason that a school in Wimbledon, Carlshalton, Fulham (affluent) would perform better than a school in say Peckham.

So even if you abolished fee-paying schools, all you would end up doing - as is the case anyway - is make more affluent areas more appealing to rich families with kids who are about to attend school (specifically secondary schools).

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Improving social mobility, IMO, isn't about restricting options (such as abolishing fee-paying schools) but increasing the opportunity for alternate options. So, as oppose to insisting that all people must attend state school, by way of banning fee-paying schools, give poor people, should the child warrant it, the ability to attend the fee-paying schools.

If your main argument is that fee-paying schools should not be banned, then you're arguing with nobody.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

1. Where was this Rick.

Hills Road

I'd be surprised if I was the only one on here who went there.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

1. Where was this Rick.

2. RJS, St Philomena's is a catholic school.

OK you got me. How much are the average house prices around the catchment area for those schools? Are they accessible tro people (poor, low income families) who would really benefit increased social mobility? Would you say the surrounding area could be categorised as socio-econmically deprived?

Not everyone can, or can afford to live there. So what about the rest of London?

And? It's a VA school like most church schools, and is mostly state funded, with a top up from the Catholic Church. They do let heathens attend too . House prices? There's quite a range from the expensive stuff up at Carshalton Beeches and lots of social housing towards St Helier. You could afford to live there without too much trouble.

More generally, bits of Sutton borough are pretty poor, but no, it's no Tower Hamlets or Newham.The other thing is that I think Londoners view of travel distances to schools is a bit distorted. Most of the boroughs are only a couple of miles across, so there might not be a good school on your doorstep, but within 3 miles? Probably.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't problems in the state sector, I'm just not sure private schools solve the problem at the national policy level, or at the personal level. I think it is significant that in areas where the population is split very clearly into the wealthy and the poor - like Islington and Wimbledon - state schools seem to have lower performance than in more socially and economically mixed areas.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Indeed - the state school 6th form I went to had better performance stats than the 6th forms of the local private schools at the time. Didn't stop quite a few parents forking out £12k a year.

I think most performance stats are a pretty dire way of measuring schools tbh. But I think this pattern is quite explainable...if the average state school kid doesn't want to go to 6th form, they generally won't, but (from my personal experience) the average private school kid doesn't really see there being any option. Hence my best mate getting thoroughly unspectacular results at A-level, despite being, by all accounts a fairly intelligent guy.

For the record, my A-level results were all below my predicted grades, and I never worked particularly hard, but I still got into uni. I think private school definitely helped me to put less effort in than I otherwise would have had to, in order to "achieve" three Bs at A-level.

flimflam_machine

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

...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.

I was agreeing with you that Rick's views probably will change when he is a parent. My main point was expand on this to say that any policy that seeks to increase social mobility will fail totally if it asks parents to act in a way that they perceive is against their children's interests, because many of them simply won't do it.

But that does not mean that his view is wrong or invalid. In many situations the view of a disinterested observer is considered to be more useful than someone who is heavily invested in it. A parallel situation is asking the family of a murder victim what should happen to the convicted murderer. Nobody is more "qualified" to say what affect the murder has had on others and society in general but (dear god!) I wouldn't want to live in a society in which criminals are punished based on the wishes of the victim's families. What is best for society may not be best determined from the viewpoint of a heavily invested or even experienced individual because they can tend to lose sight of, or simply deprioritise, how we want society as a whole to be.

One big issue (that always turns up) with this debate is how you measure, or even define, "fairness". Is it fairness of opportunity or fairness of outcome? Is it fair to give all children an absolutely equivalent education, even if it means that children with higher potential don't achieve absolutely everything that they could? Is it fair to allow more gifted children access to more/better education? If so, at what stage do you decide that a child is more or less gifted? There are just so many questions in this area it's almost impossible to know where to start. Even if you do come up with an answer, how on earth would you implement it given that you only have control of a child's education inside school and cannot control how much or little support and encouragement they get at home? Moreover, do you even want to implement it if you increased fairness at the expense of average educational quality or the expense of producing really top-level people who you'd want to do the most demanding jobs.

rick_chasey

flimflam_machine wrote:

One big issue (that always turns up) with this debate is how you measure, or even define, "fairness". Is it fairness of opportunity or fairness of outcome? Is it fair to give all children an absolutely equivalent education, even if it means that children with higher potential don't achieve absolutely everything that they could? Is it fair to allow more gifted children access to more/better education? If so, at what stage do you decide that a child is more or less gifted? There are just so many questions in this area it's almost impossible to know where to start. Even if you do come up with an answer, how on earth would you implement it given that you only have control of a child's education inside school and cannot control how much or little support and encouragement they get at home? Moreover, do you even want to implement it if you increased fairness at the expense of average educational quality or the expense of producing really top-level people who you'd want to do the most demanding jobs.

For sure, it's not easy to define and it never will be. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

My perspective is of 'equal opportunity' rather than outcome. As in, everyone gets the same chance to be successful or not. It's then up to you to make use of that opportunity or not. That way all the incentives are still there to pull your finger out and do something.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

My understanding was that if your child is bright and motivated, it really doesn't make much difference what school they go to

I generally, and through experience, know this to be widely incorrect. You highly bright and motivated child is sitting in a classroom with disruptive pupils who aren't really raised to value education. OR he is sitting in a classroom with like minded children? Which classroom is he going to achieve more in?

Yep - he probably isn't going to Oxbridge. But he'll probably still make it to Uni which is the point. It may all depend on what you define as disruptiveness and I suspect things are crapper than they were when I was at school (a fairly crap comp) but assuming you do have classes streamed for ability you shouldn't be amongst the real scrotes anyway. My point assumes intelligence and parental support and I'm pretty sure the stats it was based on probably didn't include extreme outliers. The point is that the differences were relatively slight for the intelligent children - the ones that know to keep their heads down and work even if the class as a whole isn't what it could be.

Ultimately, possibly you do the intelligent children a disservice by assuming that they will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator?

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

For sure, it's not easy to define and it never will be. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

My perspective is of 'equal opportunity' rather than outcome. As in, everyone gets the same chance to be successful or not. It's then up to you to make use of that opportunity or not. That way all the incentives are still there to pull your finger out and do something.

That already exists - In theory. Hence the good schools.
In Practice - Scrotes not trying disrupt things and the theory gets dragged down to their level. Hence the bad schools.

The obvious answer is streaming good pupils to good classes on an annual basis like a league, not 11 plus.
Worked for the good pupils back in my day.
Unfortunately you then get the lower tiers bunched together and then they have no hope. New problem. :?:

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

1. Where was this Rick.

2. RJS, St Philomena's is a catholic school.

OK you got me. How much are the average house prices around the catchment area for those schools? Are they accessible tro people (poor, low income families) who would really benefit increased social mobility? Would you say the surrounding area could be categorised as socio-econmically deprived?

Not everyone can, or can afford to live there. So what about the rest of London?

Further to this, I've just checked out the Ofsted report for one of the local private secondary schools, Carshalton High School for Girls, and it's not noticeably better than the reports for the state schools I listed previously.

Thought you might also like to see what happened to Haling Manor - mostly 'outstanding'

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/135955

cyclingprop

DonDaddyD wrote:

Not everyone can, or can afford to live there. So what about the rest of London?

How about Peckham? http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-rep ... ELS/134225

Good rating, potential to improve outstanding.

rjsterry

Seeing as they've popped up twice, here's a bit more about the Harris Federation who run over a dozen secondary schools in South London (all new Academies)

http://www.harrispurley.org.uk/46/lord-harris-of-peckham

A good/outstanding state school in Merton

cyclingprop

Another south east london school of note: Haberdasher Aske Hatcham College. Rated outstanding and in New Cross.

DonDaddyD

None of which compare to:

http://www.alleyns.org.uk/

http://www.jags.org.uk/jags/

http://www.isi.net/news/0-0/ofsted-monitoring/

Dulwich College - ISI report
Alleyns - ISI report
JAGS

And going back to my point School isn't just about the delivery of education. It's the facilities it provides and other social lessons, aspirational and cultural values that a child learns at school.

When you compare a school like Alleyns with many of the State schools (in London*), sure, a state school will probably teach you enough to get your grades. But Alleyn's gives you so much more in terms of being able to expand beyond simply being taught the national curriculum. Little things add to this as well, year books, alumni, a proper recording studio and swimming pool as oppose to no swimming pool and some Casio keyboards and a budget that cannot extend to pride building things like year books and an Alumini - who honestly cares about their state school that much? Oh and most of the facilities can be used by students as part of after school clubs. A school like that teachers excellence - against being able to pass your GCSE's.

But this isn't something you glean from an Ofsted or ISI report. Go to a State and Private school on a normal school day. Get on the bus outside the school (especially a 6th form college) tell me how you feel, it will all be subjective.

*I say London, because the way many inner city young people act is appaling, there is a really destructive anti-societal culture shaping them. Yes its part of being a teenager, yes, but what you'll find is that fee-paying schools tend to have a zero tollerance for this culture and at those institutions that culture is the exception not the accepted norm.

There are reasons for this, financial pressure, socio-economically deprived areas, no social mobility. But I'm not going to use my sons singular life to try and help solve macro problems or to prove a point. I'm going to be selfish and give him the best that I can afford to help prevent exposure to these issues.

So bottom line. It's likely that I will live in London and I want to keep my son away from the more unsavory aspects of youth culture that I endured and that is also arguably even worse now. If I live in a poor area then he is going private school or a good grammar school, assuming I can afford it and he is good enough to get in. If I live in a affluent area then he'll probably go to state school, assuming the state good meets my expectations. It's not just about education it's about the immediate culture of the society that surrounds him.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Firstly some children are just better than others so from the very beginning not every child has the same opportunity to achieve. There are those who through circumstance (genetic, social, parenting, abuse etc) will never have the same opportunity to achieve. So lets just bring the fact that all men/women are not born equal.

Secondly the above quoted bit is counter-intuitive to the society we live in (e.g. capitalism). A child whose parents can afford private tutoring are benefitting from how much cash their parents have. Are we to ban private tutoring?

A child whose parents can afford to live in a affluent area may have more options for child services/education/engagement than those who live in a poor area. That's the child directly benefitting from how much cash the parents have. This is, by the way, why we live in Wimbledon. The new baby groups are amazing and that aids his development. There are also well regarded privately owned music, drama and sports clubs. These cost money and attending may increase their opportunity to achieve, it is also something that not everyone can afford. Are we going to subsidise private extra curricular activities for the poor simply to make things fair in a capitalist society? Isn't that naive, futile and a waste of money?

There is also the fact that there may also be more viable school options available to those living in richer areas - schools will be better funded/run by a better council and possess a higher calibre of teachers. Are we going to control the distribution of teachers to schools to make things 'fair' and equal? What are you going to do about poor areas that have poorly funded/managed schools?

School and education is so tied to immediate area/Council unless you level the playing field for the society (defined by boroughs) you are going to see differences in the collective wealth of an area. You're also going to have to address the culture norms for that immediate borough based society. Some areas are less interested in schooling and education due to other social pressures that unfortunately take precedent.

So I think that, all of it, on your part is naive at worst. Idealistic at best.

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.

That's just your chip. There are those from poor backgrounds whose parents have made careful choices so that their childs performance outweighs the parents background. I've seen this many times over.

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.

So we abolish private schools. State schools are generally judged by area/borough. Not everyone can live in those areas and living in a richer area can provide more opportunities (schooling, extra curricular activities) than a poor area. That's unfair. Coupled with the fact that some parents will be able to afford extra curricular activities and some parents won't we are back to how much your parents can afford. Which is why - past a certain age and stage in our lives - we work and strive to earn more money and think carefully about what we can reasonably can provide our children before we have them.

There is a huge futility in what you've written in as much your trying to take a market (schools) that is hugely competitive, constantly subject to comparisons and influenced by many external factors specific to where the school is located. And you are trying to make the opportunity of schooling and going to school fair while not addressing these other real issues. Fact is there are huge differences between schools - so unless every school is the same with the same teachers, with the same level of funding, in areas that harbor the same social values the opportunity to achieve is never going to be equal, fair or the same from school to school and pupil to pupil. And this before we get into the childs natural ability.

This is why people refer to a post code lottery. This is why people rent in areas they can't afford, even though they could buy and move once the child has got a place. This is why people fight hard to live in certain areas.

You can see why I'm boiling this down to rich bashing. Preventing options for the well-off doesn't suddenly create more options for the poor. The external environment still exists and you just shift the extrernal factors onto other things.

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.

And what of the schools performance? Is the school getting the best out of the child? Will a child be able to meet their potential in an underfunded school or a well funded one? If you level out funding is the school well managed or poorly managed. Teachers? They have different abilities as well, some are better than others and I think you'll find there are teachers who will make the decision of where they work based on location and the quality of the surrounding area. None of which can be made equal or "fair".

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

Indeed. The obligatory attack/insult to force home the logic of the ill-thought out nonesense you've spent five minutes on. You haven't thought through all the mitigating circumstances, the side issues, the internal/external influencing factorsm, the personal circumstance (that can be grouped/generalised) required to discuss things on a Marco-level. You've just latched onto a principle - "make things fair" - and ran with it.

rjsterry

Well, you'd better start saving - the best part of £13K p.a. for Alleyns.

An Ofsted report extends far beyond GCSE results, looking at all aspects of a school, so to suggest that state schools just do the bare minimum is just nonsense. Somewhere like Harris Academy, Purley* couldn't possibly be rated as good/outstanding if it only did the bare minimum. You seem to be basing your entire argument on your unpleasant experiences as a teenager; just maybe things have changed a bit since then. I think you've got a very distorted view of young people.

*here's the prospectus http://harrispurley.org.uk/uploads/asset_file/10176_HAPU_Prospectus_2011.pdf I think they might have a bit more than a few Casio keyboards.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Well, you'd better start saving - the best part of £13K p.a. for Alleyns.

An Ofsted report extends far beyond GCSE results, looking at all aspects of a school, so to suggest that state schools just do the bare minimum is just nonsense. Somewhere like Harris Academy, Purley* couldn't possibly be rated as good/outstanding if it only did the bare minimum. You seem to be basing your entire argument on your unpleasant experiences as a teenager; just maybe things have changed a bit since then. I think you've got a very distorted view of young people.

*here's the prospectus http://harrispurley.org.uk/uploads/asset_file/10176_HAPU_Prospectus_2011.pdf I think they might have a bit more than a few Casio keyboards.

I have friends who are teachers, have begun researching schools, have my own experience and that of close family members going through the schooling system. - Not that I should have to justify the driving factors for my personal view.

A lot of state schools appear to be the delivering minimum compared to fee-paying schools because the gulf between funding made the state school look like it was delivering the minimum where as the fee-paying had the luxury of expense.

Harris Academy have a good reputation. My brother went to one of their 6th forms, hated it.

There are some great young people out there. Yes. There is an increasing worrying amount that aren't.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

If I live in a poor area then he is going private school or a good grammar school, assuming I can afford it and he is good enough to get in. If I live in a affluent area then he'll probably go to state school, assuming the state good meets my expectations. It's not just about education it's about the immediate culture of the society that surrounds him.

That is good parenting, right there, but it goes back to what I said about government's job being the to do the best for all children and parent's job being to do the best for their kid.
As the song says "Lets make above average become the new average" should be the government's job.

As a total aside WRT funding. When I was at school, I remember the head of Craft Design and Technology saying that the funding he had worked out to one sheet of A4 paper per pupil per lesson, but because of his links to industry, he managed to get the school lots of good kit. Vacuum formers, computer controlled lathes, scanners etc. This was ~20 years ago when things like computer controlled lathes was still quite new in industry and unheard of in shcools e.g. in computer studies we were using BBC Bs.
That head of department is still there, leading an outstanding department with excellent equipment. The kids get to use 3d printers. To all of the engineers on here, wouldn't you love for your kids to get used to having access to kit like that.
I'm pretty certain that the normal funding available to state schools doesn't extend to things like 3d printers, so as well as what is available to state schools, what the staff of the school can bring to the party helps a lot.

Perhaps, like politics, making teaching a career you go straight into after university isn't necessarily a good thing. Coming from 'a real job' in industry could mean you have different attitudes, attributes, links to industry and access to resources that you could bring into the school.
A former engineer would probably bring more into the school and its pupils than someone who has only studied engineering. The same applies to a former athlete working in the PE department rather than someone who left uni having studies sports science with teaching and then straight into a school.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If I live in a poor area then he is going private school or a good grammar school, assuming I can afford it and he is good enough to get in. If I live in a affluent area then he'll probably go to state school, assuming the state good meets my expectations. It's not just about education it's about the immediate culture of the society that surrounds him.

That is good parenting, right there, but it goes back to what I said about government's job being the to do the best for all children and parent's job being to do the best for their kid.
As the song says "Lets make above average become the new average" should be the government's job.

As a total aside WRT funding. When I was at school, I remember the head of Craft Design and Technology saying that the funding he had worked out to one sheet of A4 paper per pupil per lesson, but because of his links to industry, he managed to get the school lots of good kit. Vacuum formers, computer controlled lathes, scanners etc. This was ~20 years ago when things like computer controlled lathes was still quite new in industry and unheard of in shcools e.g. in computer studies we were using BBC Bs.
That head of department is still there, leading an outstanding department with excellent equipment. The kids get to use 3d printers. To all of the engineers on here, wouldn't you love for your kids to get used to having access to kit like that.
I'm pretty certain that the normal funding available to state schools doesn't extend to things like 3d printers, so as well as what is available to state schools, what the staff of the school can bring to the party helps a lot.

Perhaps, like politics, making teaching a career you go straight into after university isn't necessarily a good thing. Coming from 'a real job' in industry could mean you have different attitudes, attributes, links to industry and access to resources that you could bring into the school.
A former engineer would probably bring more into the school and its pupils than someone who has only studied engineering. The same applies to a former athlete working in the PE department rather than someone who left uni having studies sports science with teaching and then straight into a school.

I agree with everything you've just written.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree with everything you've just written.

And I'm not even a parent. Cheers!

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree with everything you've just written.

And I'm not even a parent. Cheers!

Indeed...

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

Indeed...

(You (both) may think differently when you're parents.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree with everything you've just written.

And I'm not even a parent. Cheers!

Indeed...

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

Indeed...

(You (both) may think differently when you're parents.

In case you missed it first time around

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

So far, it seems to me that you will have to do away with (a) fee paying schools; (b) private tutoring outside school; (c) all established "feeder" links between primaries and secondaries; (d) differences in teaching ability across schools (centralised video-link teaching?); (e) patronage; (f) nepotism; (g) the peerage; (h) the monarchy.

In short, you want a completely different country; one that as far as I can tell doesn't (and will probably never) exist.

Rick Chasey wrote:

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!

Well, we've tried comprehensive schools on a grand scale and they haven't really helped social mobility. So the evidence suggests your thesis is flawed.

One problem with it is that you can give every child the same opportunity, but you can't make them take it. Nor can you force their parents to change their attitude to schooling (you might be surprised at how often the parents of disruptive children are at least as arsey as the child, and vehemently claim that all the problems caused by their child at school are the fault of, well, pretty well everyone else). It's not "fair" (to use your word) that one class should be disrupted like that, so what's the solution? Remove all the disruptive children and stick them in one place? Doesn't really fit with the underlying principle, does it?



I can't help but feel that this thread has been sparked by nothing more than this:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Chap in my office went to Eton but ended up getting a third in art history - that gets more traction than any other proper degree or qualification in the office.

You're just pissed off that the Etonian gets taken more seriously that you do.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Well, you'd better start saving - the best part of £13K p.a. for Alleyns.

Don't bother. Alleyns is very hard to get into.

Not because it is academically fantastic (although it is good), but for other reasons.

The intake at 11 is about 120. Of that number, roughly half the places are taken by the Alleyns prep school candidates and siblings. That leaves 60 places - 30 boys and 30 girls. When 66 major applied, there were over 600 applicants. Odds worse than 1 in 10, which means the school has the luxury of being able to choose between someone in the top 10% who qualifies for a non-academic scholarship as well, and someone who "merely" makes it into the top 10%.

It's also riding the wave of popularity that mixed schools are enjoying at the moment in London, which doesn't help.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree with everything you've just written.

And I'm not even a parent. Cheers!

Indeed...

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

Indeed...

(You (both) may think differently when you're parents.

I hope not.
I think that good parenting and good teaching (hopefully) lead to good kids in a good school. I seriously hope everyone feels the same way I do whether they are parents or not.