Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Stevo 666 wrote:
Most people can distinguish between the legitimate protest that you mention above and the sort of sh1t stirring that McDonnell is trying to do in the link I posted (mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Doesn't excuse stirring up trouble like that. Just shows how unfit he is for high office. As if we didn't know that already.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:And in the meantime, McDonnell thinks it is acceptable to try to bring down governments by stirring up street protests:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/john-mcdonnell-calls-one-million-protesters-take-streets-bid/
If you can't win via the ballot box, try rabble rousing. FFS.
oh for ffs there isnt one million trade unionists willing to march... and even the article says its to make May step aside, not regime change!!!
2m protested against the Iraq war, that worked didnt it !!!
May is being stabbed in the back by her own party and likely to be long gone before any protest... see this for what it is, tory press desperate to blame anyone but the tory party/PM for the state of the nation.
And btw, I will concede one thing: I will never ever match you on the use of exclamation marks
So you think people haven't the right to peaceful protest? just like Boris did, calling for a march on Russian embassy! so unfit to for high office... oh wait he was in high office when he said this
"“So I would therefore call once again on everyone who cares about the plight of Syrian civilians to picket the Russian embassy in London and in capitals around the world from today.
“Two million, three million, four million people. It can be done. It has been done in the past.
“That should carry on until the bombing campaign stops and all the relevant players are forced to get around the table to end this horrible war.”
right wing hypocrisy! something i know you will condemn
says the chap who uses with abandon ! )
no difference at all, only in so far as you support one and dislike the other!
mass protest outside the Russian embassy might well have consequences way beyond anything boris could imagine, a highly irresponsible thing to do, though no one listened to him...as always!0 -
Anectdotal evidence from Facebook friends would suggest that Corbyn's more radical approach motivated many of the younger electorate in a way that previous Labour leaders hadn't: he benefited from having no attachment to Blair and his embrace of the status quo in many ways, and the 'magic wand solutions' Corbyn promised especially appealed to those who loathed (or had learned to do so) the sort of changes Thatcherism ushered in. People felt that a vote for Corbyn was a rebke both to Thatcher and to Blair, as well as the current rabble.rjsterry wrote:
Keep telling yourself that, Stevo. Labour tried a more moderate leader at the 2015 election and that didn't work. Unfortunately there is an increasing appetite for Corbyn's Old Labour approach.Stevo 666 wrote:
Call it what you want, it's worked better than all that pointless work you've put in for the Lib Dems.Rick Chasey wrote:Why do you keep banging on about it? It's not a football team.
I think they have good ideas on how to run the content. I think it's a shame more people don't agree.
Why is that a come back? At least I put my money where my mouth is about politics and try and do something constructive.
I haven't heard much about your campaigning?
So far all I've seen is myopic tribalism and the only political act you did was a backfired attempt of sabotage.
And as mentioned before, Labour very probably would have done better with a more moderate leader, so job's a good 'unas far as I'm concerned.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:People felt that a vote for Corbyn was a rebke both to Thatcher and to Blair, as well as the current rabble.
A vote against eg the Conservatives rather than a vote for Labour. It's getting difficult to find a positive reason to vote for a party. I voted against May this time but I suspect Corbyn will force me to vote against Labour (by going Lib Dem) at the next election.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Where's the net social gain for private schools?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/se ... -poor.html
Eton is usually the one people hammer the hardest
http://www.etoncollege.com/summaryofpublicbenefit.aspx
PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PUPILs
Engagement with the State Sector
We are proud to be a member of the Eton, Slough, Windsor and Hounslow Independent and State School Partnership with our six neighbouring state schools (two comprehensives and two academies in Slough, a comprehensive in Windsor and another in Heston (Hounslow)). As the only independent school in the partnership, Eton is expected to take the lead in developing and sustaining the partnership.
The ISSP aims to raise pupil achievement; improve pupil self-esteem; raise pupil aspirations; and, improve professional practice across the schools. Since it was founded in 2008, this partnership has provided numerous opportunities for academic collaboration (through Saturday Schools and other academic workshops and mentoring); collaboration in the arts and sports; and opportunities for teachers' professional development. The collaboration has contributed towards improved results in the state schools at GCSE level.
Particular projects initiated and sustained by Eton for the ISSP over the last three years include:
Academic:
- Saturday schools held at Eton and taught by Eton masters for Year 9 and 10 pupils from the six state schools. These classes aim to improve the students' creative thinking skills across a range of subjects (Maths, English and Science) and to raise the students' ambition to stay on at school to do A levels. These are held over 15 Saturdays throughout the year.
- Academic mentoring (in Maths) of 25 Year 10 state school pupils by 25 Eton boys on Monday afternoons during the Lent Half 2011. The school concerned achieved a record 74% A*-C in Maths GCSE in 2011. All of the pupils who achieved A* and A grades were mentored by Eton boys.
- Master classes held at Eton for Maths GCSE students from the partnership schools.
- The mentoring and master class projects are due to expand to cover English in 2012.
Arts:
- Running two printmaking workshops at Eton College for 15 pupils. These are facilities which the state schools do not have.[/i]0 -
They do that stuff to mitigate their social cost don't they?
That's part of the net figure I asked after. :P0 -
Exactly so. It was an interesting dynamic in Exeter, as the sitting Labour MP (Ben Bradshaw), vocally anti-Corbyn, is extremely hard working for the constituency, and has a very strong following, despite the SW not being a natural Labour area. I would guess that he got votes from those who like him but don't like Corbyn (but dislike the Tories more), and from those who like Corbyn: he tripled his majority.Rolf F wrote:briantrumpet wrote:People felt that a vote for Corbyn was a rebke both to Thatcher and to Blair, as well as the current rabble.
A vote against eg the Conservatives rather than a vote for Labour. It's getting difficult to find a positive reason to vote for a party. I voted against May this time but I suspect Corbyn will force me to vote against Labour (by going Lib Dem) at the next election.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:They do that stuff to mitigate their social cost don't they?
That's part of the net figure I asked after. :P
I suspect that you agree that (like fox hunting) it is a rabble rousing subject that takes on a meaning far beyond it's real importance.
and no I am not going to rise to the bait and attempt to work out a number for you - not least because I went to a Comp so do not have the tools to do so0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:They do that stuff to mitigate their social cost don't they?
That's part of the net figure I asked after. :P
I suspect that you agree that (like fox hunting) it is a rabble rousing subject that takes on a meaning far beyond it's real importance.
and no I am not going to rise to the bait and attempt to work out a number for you - not least because I went to a Comp so do not have the tools to do so
Fair.
What I mean is, on the broadest public level, private schools, by definition, must be costly, unless they are private because they provide to a niche too small to be effectively covered by the state; e.g. those with disabilities, behavioural issues, etc.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Where's the net social gain for private schools?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/se ... -poor.html
Eton is usually the one people hammer the hardest
http://www.etoncollege.com/summaryofpublicbenefit.aspx
PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PUPILs
Engagement with the State Sector
We are proud to be a member of the Eton, Slough, Windsor and Hounslow Independent and State School Partnership with our six neighbouring state schools (two comprehensives and two academies in Slough, a comprehensive in Windsor and another in Heston (Hounslow)). As the only independent school in the partnership, Eton is expected to take the lead in developing and sustaining the partnership.
The ISSP aims to raise pupil achievement; improve pupil self-esteem; raise pupil aspirations; and, improve professional practice across the schools. Since it was founded in 2008, this partnership has provided numerous opportunities for academic collaboration (through Saturday Schools and other academic workshops and mentoring); collaboration in the arts and sports; and opportunities for teachers' professional development. The collaboration has contributed towards improved results in the state schools at GCSE level.
Particular projects initiated and sustained by Eton for the ISSP over the last three years include:
Academic:
- Saturday schools held at Eton and taught by Eton masters for Year 9 and 10 pupils from the six state schools. These classes aim to improve the students' creative thinking skills across a range of subjects (Maths, English and Science) and to raise the students' ambition to stay on at school to do A levels. These are held over 15 Saturdays throughout the year.
- Academic mentoring (in Maths) of 25 Year 10 state school pupils by 25 Eton boys on Monday afternoons during the Lent Half 2011. The school concerned achieved a record 74% A*-C in Maths GCSE in 2011. All of the pupils who achieved A* and A grades were mentored by Eton boys.
- Master classes held at Eton for Maths GCSE students from the partnership schools.
- The mentoring and master class projects are due to expand to cover English in 2012.
Arts:
- Running two printmaking workshops at Eton College for 15 pupils. These are facilities which the state schools do not have.[/i]
so a tiny handful of state pupils have benefited, i dont know how much in fees have been paid to eton in the last 9 years but 20% of that would pay for an awful lot of Saturday maths and english classes by qualified teachers, not school children.
Its obv that (with v limited places) only the top state kids would be put fwd for this scheme, so yes the A and A* pupils would have been mentored.
If eton was providing qualified teaching staff and helping not only the top children but all abilities, then you d have a point.
when the local comp was put into special measures and lost their head' it was another state school that provided the help, the 2 large private schools in the locality did nothing at all.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Where's the net social gain for private schools?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/se ... -poor.html
Eton is usually the one people hammer the hardest
http://www.etoncollege.com/summaryofpublicbenefit.aspx
PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PUPILs
Engagement with the State Sector
We are proud to be a member of the Eton, Slough, Windsor and Hounslow Independent and State School Partnership with our six neighbouring state schools (two comprehensives and two academies in Slough, a comprehensive in Windsor and another in Heston (Hounslow)). As the only independent school in the partnership, Eton is expected to take the lead in developing and sustaining the partnership.
The ISSP aims to raise pupil achievement; improve pupil self-esteem; raise pupil aspirations; and, improve professional practice across the schools. Since it was founded in 2008, this partnership has provided numerous opportunities for academic collaboration (through Saturday Schools and other academic workshops and mentoring); collaboration in the arts and sports; and opportunities for teachers' professional development. The collaboration has contributed towards improved results in the state schools at GCSE level.
Particular projects initiated and sustained by Eton for the ISSP over the last three years include:
Academic:
- Saturday schools held at Eton and taught by Eton masters for Year 9 and 10 pupils from the six state schools. These classes aim to improve the students' creative thinking skills across a range of subjects (Maths, English and Science) and to raise the students' ambition to stay on at school to do A levels. These are held over 15 Saturdays throughout the year.
- Academic mentoring (in Maths) of 25 Year 10 state school pupils by 25 Eton boys on Monday afternoons during the Lent Half 2011. The school concerned achieved a record 74% A*-C in Maths GCSE in 2011. All of the pupils who achieved A* and A grades were mentored by Eton boys.
- Master classes held at Eton for Maths GCSE students from the partnership schools.
- The mentoring and master class projects are due to expand to cover English in 2012.
Arts:
- Running two printmaking workshops at Eton College for 15 pupils. These are facilities which the state schools do not have.[/i]
so a tiny handful of state pupils have benefited, i dont know how much in fees have been paid to eton in the last 9 years but 20% of that would pay for an awful lot of Saturday maths and english classes by qualified teachers, not school children.
Its obv that (with v limited places) only the top state kids would be put fwd for this scheme, so yes the A and A* pupils would have been mentored.
If eton was providing qualified teaching staff and helping not only the top children but all abilities, then you d have a point.
when the local comp was put into special measures and lost their head' it was another state school that provided the help, the 2 large private schools in the locality did nothing at all.
The quoted revenue I have seen is £140m which if we allow for mitigating measures and some kids ending up back in the state sector probably drops it down to below £100m which would be spent on 19 hours interest payment on the national debt. So highly unlikely to effect your failing local comp.0 -
I was at Stowe walking round the gardens yesterday, and wondered how much it costs to put a kid through there. It's about £8,000 for day pupils (£11,000 for boarders). Per term.0
-
In terms of the tax revenue look after the millions and the billions will take care of themselves?
To an extent, and this is looking at it from a non-economic POV, it does seem odd that we charge value added tax on female sanitary products, but not on private school fees.
Effectively, clamping down on private schools would probably be beneficial for society. Ensuring we have state schools that provide a good level of education (small class sizes, talented teachers) would be a lot easier, if the sort of busy body parents who currently send Tarquin and Hattie to a private school, were forced to send them to the local comp...
But the effect would be very long term...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jez mon wrote:In terms of the tax revenue look after the millions and the billions will take care of themselves?
To an extent, and this is looking at it from a non-economic POV, it does seem odd that we charge value added tax on female sanitary products, but not on private school fees.
Effectively, clamping down on private schools would probably be beneficial for society. Ensuring we have state schools that provide a good level of education (small class sizes, talented teachers) would be a lot easier, if the sort of busy body parents who currently send Tarquin and Hattie to a private school, were forced to send them to the local comp...
But the effect would be very long term...
Fundamentally there are those of us who want a society that allows people to achieve and there are others who resent success.0 -
This is a difficult one to square for me.
On the one hand, I agree with the idea that it would be better for all the middle class parents to be involved with state schools, there's no doubt that it would improve standards.*
On the other hand, legislating the abolition of private schools (or manipulating it via punitive taxes etc) is another example of how socialist government always ends up bringing about its utopia by making the state the sole provider of everything - by compulsion if necessary.
*Actually I'm not even sure of this. I work at a school in a reasonably middle-class country town with very low private school uptake and there are indeed plenty of pushy parents: but when they come hassling, I'm not usually left with the feeling that standards had better rise and I should buck my ideas up - it's usually more like "how can I get rid of this ill-informed idiot who wants to blame all their parenting failures on me"?0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:In terms of the tax revenue look after the millions and the billions will take care of themselves?
To an extent, and this is looking at it from a non-economic POV, it does seem odd that we charge value added tax on female sanitary products, but not on private school fees.
Effectively, clamping down on private schools would probably be beneficial for society. Ensuring we have state schools that provide a good level of education (small class sizes, talented teachers) would be a lot easier, if the sort of busy body parents who currently send Tarquin and Hattie to a private school, were forced to send them to the local comp...
But the effect would be very long term...
Fundamentally there are those of us who want a society that allows people to achieve and there are others who resent success.
Fundamentally society puts too much emphasis on those who achieve, and does not do enough work to raise the bottom end.
The latter adds significantly more value to the public as a whole than allowing the already capable to achieve marginally higher achievements.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:In terms of the tax revenue look after the millions and the billions will take care of themselves?
To an extent, and this is looking at it from a non-economic POV, it does seem odd that we charge value added tax on female sanitary products, but not on private school fees.
Effectively, clamping down on private schools would probably be beneficial for society. Ensuring we have state schools that provide a good level of education (small class sizes, talented teachers) would be a lot easier, if the sort of busy body parents who currently send Tarquin and Hattie to a private school, were forced to send them to the local comp...
But the effect would be very long term...
Fundamentally there are those of us who want a society that allows people to achieve and there are others who resent success.
Fundamentally society puts too much emphasis on those who achieve, and does not do enough work to raise the bottom end.
The latter adds significantly more value to the public as a whole than allowing the already capable to achieve marginally higher achievements.
put me down as somebody who wants to grow the cake rather than how we distribute the current inadequate cake0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:In terms of the tax revenue look after the millions and the billions will take care of themselves?
To an extent, and this is looking at it from a non-economic POV, it does seem odd that we charge value added tax on female sanitary products, but not on private school fees.
Effectively, clamping down on private schools would probably be beneficial for society. Ensuring we have state schools that provide a good level of education (small class sizes, talented teachers) would be a lot easier, if the sort of busy body parents who currently send Tarquin and Hattie to a private school, were forced to send them to the local comp...
But the effect would be very long term...
Fundamentally there are those of us who want a society that allows people to achieve and there are others who resent success.
Fundamentally society puts too much emphasis on those who achieve, and does not do enough work to raise the bottom end.
The latter adds significantly more value to the public as a whole than allowing the already capable to achieve marginally higher achievements.
We should be supporting those who want to achieve, to our best ability.
Everyone cannot become a professional footballer, no matter how hard you work those not as talented, in the same way that some are academically gifted compared to others. To hold those at the top back to somehow make the system more equal is wrong.0 -
-
Finally!Surrey Commuter wrote:put me down as somebody who wants to grow the cake rather than how we distribute the current inadequate cake
The answer as to why someone left the cake out in the rain. The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Please, no more cake jokes - I don't think that I can take it...PBlakeney wrote:
Finally!Surrey Commuter wrote:put me down as somebody who wants to grow the cake rather than how we distribute the current inadequate cake
The answer as to why someone left the cake out in the rain.0 -
Chris Morris had all the best ones anyway.bompington wrote:
Please, no more cake jokes - I don't think that I can take it...PBlakeney wrote:
Finally!Surrey Commuter wrote:put me down as somebody who wants to grow the cake rather than how we distribute the current inadequate cake
The answer as to why someone left the cake out in the rain.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:In terms of the tax revenue look after the millions and the billions will take care of themselves?
To an extent, and this is looking at it from a non-economic POV, it does seem odd that we charge value added tax on female sanitary products, but not on private school fees.
Effectively, clamping down on private schools would probably be beneficial for society. Ensuring we have state schools that provide a good level of education (small class sizes, talented teachers) would be a lot easier, if the sort of busy body parents who currently send Tarquin and Hattie to a private school, were forced to send them to the local comp...
But the effect would be very long term...
Fundamentally there are those of us who want a society that allows people to achieve and there are others who resent success.
Fundamentally society puts too much emphasis on those who achieve, and does not do enough work to raise the bottom end.
The latter adds significantly more value to the public as a whole than allowing the already capable to achieve marginally higher achievements.
We should be supporting those who want to achieve, to our best ability.
Everyone cannot become a professional footballer, no matter how hard you work those not as talented, in the same way that some are academically gifted compared to others. To hold those at the top back to somehow make the system more equal is wrong.
I think the point is, if you are academically at the top, lack of some of the bells and whistles that private schools can provide will not significantly hold you back.
From what I've seen, where private schools excel is not so much quality of teaching, and facilities, but in networking and connections to higher education and employers. In other words opportunity and expectation of success. This seems to be of more benefit to middle ability students.
More importantly, developing that network and raising expectations is something that state schools can do without necessarily investing in a brand new top of the range lab block or sports facility. Someone on here (MRS?) posted the other day about how after one student had made it to Oxbridge, several others followed as the school had worked out how to do it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:In terms of the tax revenue look after the millions and the billions will take care of themselves?
To an extent, and this is looking at it from a non-economic POV, it does seem odd that we charge value added tax on female sanitary products, but not on private school fees.
Effectively, clamping down on private schools would probably be beneficial for society. Ensuring we have state schools that provide a good level of education (small class sizes, talented teachers) would be a lot easier, if the sort of busy body parents who currently send Tarquin and Hattie to a private school, were forced to send them to the local comp...
But the effect would be very long term...
Fundamentally there are those of us who want a society that allows people to achieve and there are others who resent success.
Fundamentally society puts too much emphasis on those who achieve, and does not do enough work to raise the bottom end.
The latter adds significantly more value to the public as a whole than allowing the already capable to achieve marginally higher achievements.
We should be supporting those who want to achieve, to our best ability.
Everyone cannot become a professional footballer, no matter how hard you work those not as talented, in the same way that some are academically gifted compared to others. To hold those at the top back to somehow make the system more equal is wrong.
I think the point is, if you are academically at the top, lack of some of the bells and whistles that private schools can provide will not significantly hold you back.
From what I've seen, where private schools excel is not so much quality of teaching, and facilities, but in networking and connections to higher education and employers. In other words opportunity and expectation of success. This seems to be of more benefit to middle ability students.
More importantly, developing that network and raising expectations is something that state schools can do without necessarily investing in a brand new top of the range lab block or sports facility. Someone on here (MRS?) posted the other day about how after one student had made it to Oxbridge, several others followed as the school had worked out how to do it.
personally I think private schools are better at helping kids maximise their potential, partly through being in an environment that expects success0 -
you could make that argument for Grammar schools but private schools select on wealth.
My brother put his kids in a top private school because of the networking, they r avg at best kids and havent improved either, even he says they have not flourished as he hoped but it doesnt matter because they ve now got great connections...
We should be investing in all kids, whether it is to get a high performing child into Oxbridge and become a top surgeon or bring up a below avg kid to become a tradesperson, because if we dont do this asap, then we will continue to be reliant on immigration.0 -
mamba80 wrote:you could make that argument for Grammar schools but private schools select on wealth.
My brother put his kids in a top private school because of the networking, they r avg at best kids and havent improved either, even he says they have not flourished as he hoped but it doesnt matter because they ve now got great connections...
We should be investing in all kids, whether it is to get a high performing child into Oxbridge and become a top surgeon or bring up a below avg kid to become a tradesperson, because if we dont do this asap, then we will continue to be reliant on immigration.
and nobody would disagree with your sentiment but how would you do it and at what cost.
Personally I think the biggest step change in education would be halving the class sizes which would probably double the budget0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:you could make that argument for Grammar schools but private schools select on wealth.
My brother put his kids in a top private school because of the networking, they r avg at best kids and havent improved either, even he says they have not flourished as he hoped but it doesnt matter because they ve now got great connections...
We should be investing in all kids, whether it is to get a high performing child into Oxbridge and become a top surgeon or bring up a below avg kid to become a tradesperson, because if we dont do this asap, then we will continue to be reliant on immigration.
and nobody would disagree with your sentiment but how would you do it and at what cost.
Personally I think the biggest step change in education would be halving the class sizes which would probably double the budget
Tax the people who would have paid for private school for the same amount, funnel it into the state school and hey presto.
(said in jest).0 -
As I said, this is not necessarily something that costs a lot of money; and it's something state schools can learn to do fairly easily (if they don't already - mine did).Surrey Commuter wrote:rjsterry wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Jez mon wrote:In terms of the tax revenue look after the millions and the billions will take care of themselves?
To an extent, and this is looking at it from a non-economic POV, it does seem odd that we charge value added tax on female sanitary products, but not on private school fees.
Effectively, clamping down on private schools would probably be beneficial for society. Ensuring we have state schools that provide a good level of education (small class sizes, talented teachers) would be a lot easier, if the sort of busy body parents who currently send Tarquin and Hattie to a private school, were forced to send them to the local comp...
But the effect would be very long term...
Fundamentally there are those of us who want a society that allows people to achieve and there are others who resent success.
Fundamentally society puts too much emphasis on those who achieve, and does not do enough work to raise the bottom end.
The latter adds significantly more value to the public as a whole than allowing the already capable to achieve marginally higher achievements.
We should be supporting those who want to achieve, to our best ability.
Everyone cannot become a professional footballer, no matter how hard you work those not as talented, in the same way that some are academically gifted compared to others. To hold those at the top back to somehow make the system more equal is wrong.
I think the point is, if you are academically at the top, lack of some of the bells and whistles that private schools can provide will not significantly hold you back.
From what I've seen, where private schools excel is not so much quality of teaching, and facilities, but in networking and connections to higher education and employers. In other words opportunity and expectation of success. This seems to be of more benefit to middle ability students.
More importantly, developing that network and raising expectations is something that state schools can do without necessarily investing in a brand new top of the range lab block or sports facility. Someone on here (MRS?) posted the other day about how after one student had made it to Oxbridge, several others followed as the school had worked out how to do it.
personally I think private schools are better at helping kids maximise their potential, partly through being in an environment that expects success1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Flip me we'd all love this... small classes feel so much nicer, intuitively we all know it must improve things...Surrey Commuter wrote:Personally I think the biggest step change in education would be halving the class sizes
... and all the research suggests that it doesn't actually make any real difference :?0 -
...and here we're getting nearer the crux of the matter... not just education but in all kinds of areas. Basically: culture trumps everything else - you can throw money at something but it might make no fundamental change at all. But if you change the culture - the expectations, behaviours, values - you can change everything.rjsterry wrote:As I said, this is not necessarily something that costs a lot of money; and it's something state schools can learn to do fairly easily (if they don't already - mine did).
Trouble is, culture change doesn't necessarily come for free.0
