Alright Dave?

Oh come on! That’s as ridiculous a statement as saying that ‘the poor’ got where they are by wasting all their money on alcohol, drugs, cigarettes and gambling!

What are the mechanics of this ‘oppression’ of the ‘have nots’ by the ‘haves’ exactly?

So, I just become the headmaster of a state school do I; and deliberately hire crap staff so my own children, at private school, have a better chance of getting that top university place then? Or does it need a conspiracy of headmasters at state schools? Or is it a bigger conspiracy involving the school governors too? And has the local education authority been infiltrated by this vast conspiracy?

Seriously, stop perpetuating this ‘class war’ propaganda. :rolleyes:

Don’t get you’re knickers in a twist, I don’t imagine for one moment that there is an”official” conspiracy of any sort, however look at the lengths parents will go to to ensure that their children do not attend a school with a high intake from a “deprived” area, or few if any pupils for who English is not a first language, will move home merely to get the right post code for intake.

I fully realise that these parents are trying to do what they feel is best for their child, but this leaves behind those less able to engineer which school their child attends, I went to a damn good grammar school courtesy of the old 11+ exam system, but that form of selection is now frowned upon. How can we achieve a system which gives all kids equal opportunity?, again understanding fully that some will flourish and some will flounder.

I do feel that all of us, me included, contribute to a division based on wealth or “social class” (for want of a better word), fortunately when my own children attended secondary school, the local school was a pretty good school and both did well in their time there, however another school fairly close by had a poor reputation and yes, I just like others made absolutely certain that my own children had their places booked at the school of choice and didn’t finish up at the “wrong” school when the best one was full.

I am no different to the majority, possibly didn’t phrase my statement very well, but certainly I would do whatever I could to ensure that my children didn’t go to a “rough” school.

At one time my job occasionally took me into schools, the biggest difference was in pupils rather than staff, one school in particular was not good in terms of the attitude of pupils, the problem goes beyond schools, teachers or the system, but how do we change it?

Indeed. I can quite assure you that there is huge pressure on schools to ensure that children from every background do as well as possible. Indeed, as I suggested earlier, it has little to do with background, and everything to do with the attitude of the responsible adults involved.

Those attitudes won’t change overnight. Whilst engagement of the children, giving them something interesting to do in the name of learning, will help matters, too often their attitudes come from their family members, who achieved little or nothing whilst at school. Now, you can blame the system they were educated in to a point, but this often goes back generations. How is this the fault of the ‘have’s’?

…please remember many of the “haves” do not want the “have nots” to achieve anything…

Oh come on! That’s as ridiculous a statement as saying that ‘the poor’ got where they are by wasting all their money on alcohol, drugs, cigarettes and gambling!

…more, better educated youngsters leaving our schools will put pressure on further education and the better jobs/careers.

What are the mechanics of this ‘oppression’ of the ‘have nots’ by the ‘haves’ exactly?

So, I just become the headmaster of a state school do I; and deliberately hire crap staff so my own children, at private school, have a better chance of getting that top university place then? Or does it need a conspiracy of headmasters at state schools? Or is it a bigger conspiracy involving the school governors too? And has the local education authority been infiltrated by this vast conspiracy?

Seriously, stop perpetuating this ‘class war’ propaganda. :rolleyes:

I think SNAFU, that you ought to go onto some American sites, and see what they have to say about their immigration problems. One s that there is a rebellion going on at present regarding their Vets who have come back from recent confllcts, ie Irack, Afghanistan, and their Welfare benefits have been cut, and given to immigrants.Obama is not very popular.
Jim.
Lincoln .7i

Ok, but I think you’ll find birth rate of the indigenous people has more to do with that than immigration. Reduce the birth rate, reduce the pressure. Problem with that, or any working age population decrease, is the aging population is expanding rapidly and the welfare state needs working people to pay for those it supports.

Are you seriously suggesting that the indigenous population should reduce the birthrate in order to support more immigrants?

And you’re 100% right about the welfare state, it is effectively a giant pyramid scheme. But importing people en masse is not sustainable, so we will have to find a way of breaking that vicious cycle.

You refer to those who cannot afford fees and uniforms etc. Many in that category will spend their cash on drink, holidays, smoking and the latest electronic gadgetry. It depends on ones priorities. It is remarkable how money can be found for gratification and not for education.

If we want to level up the playing field we have to somehow inculcate the right atitudes to education among the broad mass of the population. Only then will State schools become generally the centers of excellence that all of us wish for. If we don’t do something, then the observations of the OECD will become even more disturbing.

Never fails to amaze that some have this naive assumption that those who can’t “afford” whatever, are only in that situation because they waste their money in other areas, does it never occur to too many that there are people out there who don’t receive enough cash to survive on let alone “waste” it.

Yes there is an attitude problem with some, changing that is going to be some job, also, please remember many of the “haves” do not want the “have nots” to achieve anything, more, better educated youngsters leaving our schools will put pressure on further education and the better jobs/careers.

Again must agree in part with your comments as to those not wishing to learn, from the BBC, picked up a piece showing that the gap in academic and skills of teenage NEETS in this country and their working peers is one of the biggest in Europe. it is also reckoned that 50% or more of teenage NEETS are not actively seeking work or trying to improve their situation, basically we have a small hard core of youngsters who couldn’t care less about their situation, that is so sad and a total waste.

I am not castigating everyone in the State system, that would not be sensible. The catchment area of my experience does not extend that far. I am, like most who comment on these matters, limited to my personal experience.

You refer to those who cannot afford fees and uniforms etc. Many in that category will spend their cash on drink, holidays, smoking and the latest electronic gadgetry. It depends on ones priorities. It is remarkable how money can be found for gratification and not for education.

If we want to level up the playing field we have to somehow inculcate the right atitudes to education among the broad mass of the population. Only then will State schools become generally the centers of excellence that all of us wish for. If we don’t do something, then the observations of the OECD will become even more disturbing.

John,

I wont argue with any of that – but is it solely the job of the education system so to do?

If it were easy, etc etc.

Bruce

Nevertheless – that is what the two dipsticks did LOL (3 or 4 if you count others)

To what purpose? I note you say there was no planning, ok that’s fine but there surely must have been a purpose? Are you claiming that they thought swarms of people arriving from overseas would forever vote Labour, becoming and thus maintaining their power base? Really?

There was no planning – just because you do not believe it does not necessarily make it untrue snafu – you are still posting on here in a very condescending way my old fruit – try a little friendliness ! LOL

Snafu

Your rebuttal stands up only if some notion of planning was required and applied. It wasn’t. All the Chuckle Bros (aka Blair/Brown) had to do, having decided that uncontrolled immigration was just what we needed, was to stand back open the borders, let it be known that all were welcome – the news spread faster than a whore’s legs open – and issue National Insurance numbers and British passports as fast as they could be printed.

Planning? I don’t think it mattered.

Not sure that I understand your comment here John. The best I can get to is essentially the two power hungry fools had a dastardly plan that simply involved opening the door?

To what purpose? I note you say there was no planning, ok that’s fine but there surely must have been a purpose? Are you claiming that they thought swarms of people arriving from overseas would forever vote Labour, becoming and thus maintaining their power base? Really?

That is still a plan of sorts and I still maintain that they, or any politician of the last 60 years, are incapable of such!

.

Your first sentence is not what I said, as you well know.

To then state that I apparently have no knowledge whilst in the same post stating that you definitely have no knowledge as you do not venture to these “no go” areas is strange at best!

I’d also appreciate it if you stopped with the pathetic attempt at dismissal by using “the party line” crap. Your own contribution is more “party line” (or daily fail!) than anything I’ve posted! If that’s all you’ve got to offer it is really not a worthwhile or educative exchange.

.

I didn’t shout anything Lincoln, I made an observation. One you clearly don’t like or agree with. I also didn’t say whether I was happy to see areas get taken over and transformed into dangerous locales. For what it’s worth I’m not.
Has it occurred to you that your experience may not be the typical one? So whilst your observations, thoughts and feelings may well be justified for the circumstances you are in they are not valid more generally?
Please be more specific on what exactly you are saying with regard to non whites living in the UK.
Not sure you why you doubt that I live in Lux, that’s a strange one, where do you think I live? Is it that you suspect I may be a black or dusky chap living in one of the locales you are talking about?

.

Ok, but I think you’ll find birth rate of the indigenous people has more to do with that than immigration. Reduce the birth rate, reduce the pressure. Problem with that, or any working age population decrease, is the aging population is expanding rapidly and the welfare state needs working people to pay for those it supports.

I am not castigating everyone in the State system, that would not be sensible. The catchment area of my experience does not extend that far. I am, like most who comment on these matters, limited to my personal experience.

You refer to those who cannot afford fees and uniforms etc. Many in that category will spend their cash on drink, holidays, smoking and the latest electronic gadgetry. It depends on ones priorities. It is remarkable how money can be found for gratification and not for education.

If we want to level up the playing field we have to somehow inculcate the right atitudes to education among the broad mass of the population. Only then will State schools become generally the centers of excellence that all of us wish for. If we don’t do something, then the observations of the OECD will become even more disturbing.

It might well be about those things you mention Bruce but, it is much more about attitudes. The attitude of parents who value and prize education as opposed to those who don’t. I think that there are many more of the latter. I do have some first hand experience of both private and State and I write from that perspective.

John

Most of your last post is indicative of a wealth divide rather than an ability divide, of course those parents who have the wherewithal to afford private education fees will also ensure that their kids are well fed and clothed, remember the state schools have an obligation to take everyone within their catchment area, no chance to pick and chose who they admit, some of those parents may well be struggling financially and yes there will also be some who have little or no regard for education or teachers, but to then use this to castigate everyone in the state system is totally wrong.

However, what do you suggest? private education for everyone? those who simply can’t afford the fees and uniforms etc, be provided for to give a level playing field?

Personally I went to a very good Grammar School courtesy of the old 11+ exam system, this particular school still took a number of fee paying boarders, this may shock you, but the boarders were generally the poorer performers both academically and in sports, athletics etc.

In this case all pupils had the same teachers and lessons, the boarders had the advantage of supervised homework with help at hand, plus after hours access to tennis courts, swimming pool, gym, playing fields, these didn’t have the desired effect.

John

Good education, whether by the state or by private provision, is about good leadership, good practices, and good governance.

For the private sector, it is much easier to pick and choose. In the state sector, it is common to have a single, or zero applicants for jobs, which makes everybody’s job that much harder. You cannot tar everybody with the same brush.

Although uncomfortable for many, the idea that we were all born equal is pure nonsense, so comparing the quality of teaching at a private school, which generally has students attending whose parents are invested in their future, with a state school, where the reverse is sometimes the case is rather unfair. There are plenty of teachers in state education delivering blisteringly good teaching, but there is often a limit to what they can impart. However, for children who do want to learn, the opportunity is there.

“adopt appropriate strategies…”

“self supported study ..”

Who would be without the left wing justifications and excuses so redolent of State education. Obviously, you haven’t read my #119 or you wouldn’t be so complacent.

The gulf between private and State education is immense. With encouraging and supportive parents invariably in the background, the first actually values education – unlike the second, it isn’t a chore. The gulf between the two systems encompasses even their personal appearence. Private students always in neat and tidy uniform with clean shoes and ties where they should be.

The private sector expects and gets bright, attentive and enthusiastic children with parents and grandparents who support them in all their scholarly activities. I know this from first hand experience. This support doesn’t always come from wealthy parents with a bottomless purse. The children come from varied backgrounds including those that make sacrifices to pay the school fees – as did my parents – to give their offspring the advantage of a private education.

My grandchildren attend a private school in Berkshire, I live one hundred yards from a State secondary school which calls itself a college. I know nothing about the academic life of the ‘college’. I know much more about that of the private school. Trekbuster, the behaviour of these two groups of children is as different as chalk is from cheese. I could go into so much detail to illustrate my point. But, what is the point ? Whatever I write will be unacceptable to you. I think that we must agree to differ.

Maybe not, there must be some exceptions. Private education tho’ does provide better teachers. Better, in the sense of teacher centered teaching skills rather than encouraging students to educate themselves with the lack of structure that that entails.

I was desperately trying to give up on this particular section within the thread,thinking, I’ve said my piece, that’s enough everybody else is probably getting bored. But s*d it…

This is b**llocks, pure and simple. Where have you gained direct experience in secondary education in the state sector to back this up? My experience of working day in day out with highly experienced and well motivated staff , who write and re-write lesson plans and schemes of work to ensure that all the students whatever their ability have a structure which includes self-supported study which is vital to engender independent thinking, but not to the exclusion of all other teacher led approaches, in the state sector simply does not support your very black and white perspective.
If you had said, ‘private education may sometimes provide better teachers’ or ‘private education can provide smaller class sizes that allows teachers to adopt appropriate strategies more effectively’ I might be more sympathetic to your point of view.

To answer earlier criticisms, to say there is a crisis of responsibility where we blame the poor – or increasingly, those one rung below us – for economic problems is not a misunderstanding, it is an observation. As is the fact that politicians are making political capital out of that unseemly part of human nature. Or that most of these politicians are personally very near the top of the ladder.. Further, I do not feel great about being called stupid for making these observations.

There are misunderstandings rife at the moment. For example, the idea that money spent on social care, or even benefits, is somehow ‘lost’. Follow the money. Every penny a poor person has is spent because it has to be. It passes back into the system. Ok, it is not ‘invested’. But neither does it sit in an offshore account. There are fundamental things at work here, which I agree need to be understood properly before we get too heated.

I am leaving this forum now, as I do not wish to make enemies of people I would get along with otherwise.

My apologies. In quoting you earlier I broke one of my cardinal-rules; ‘never respond to a single post without reading back through the thread’…

…and in doing so I responded to what I assumed you were saying!

I’m going to also add a new cardinal-rule for myself ‘never respond in a rush, in a bad mood, with a bad back and with too little sleep!’ Forget what I said, all of it…

…and don’t leave this forum…..I need the opinions of intelligent people who (sometimes) disagree with me!

Maybe not, there must be some exceptions. Private education tho’ does provide better teachers. Better, in the sense of teacher centered teaching skills rather than encouraging students to educate themselves with the lack of structure that that entails.

TI fully concur with beermat on his analysis

British State education is in a mess. Fortunately, we still have a thriving private education establishment to provide enough expertise to run the country

I fundamentally disagree with your analysis that private always good/state always bad in the educational field. There is poor provision in both sectors. I have encountered many students who have come from well respected independent schools who have poor study skills and whose GCSE results seemed to bear no relation to their actual ability in my subject, so ‘massaging’ exam results is not exclusive to the state sector. Please don’t suggest that I am imagining these occurrences.

For balance, this also happened with a few pupils from some of our feeder state schools.

I admit that most of my 30 years in the state sector was at sixth form level so by definition I was working with the brighter and more motivated students, but my experience is valid, not all those in private education to 16 achieved their full potential as is also certainly the case in the state sector. Paying for education is not a guarrantee of immediate academic success.

Expertise? The job of running the country – or the difficult if boring bits of the job – as I am sure you know belongs to the Civil Service. That is an organisation that has a very representative split of educational backgrounds, and prides itself on that – unlike the Cabinet. It does not take brain to be a cabinet minister, and it never did. Further, the Transport Secretary does not need a degree in Transport. The Health Secretary does not even need GCSE biology. So what ‘expertise’ do you mean, John?

Both ‘Yes Minister’ and ‘The Thick of It’ were described by those in politics at the time as alarmingly accurate, and though 30 years apart sent up the same situation. I am sure they are seen as ‘Commie Propaganda’ by some on here.

To answer earlier criticisms, to say there is a crisis of responsibility where we blame the poor – or increasingly, those one rung below us – for economic problems is not a misunderstanding, it is an observation. As is the fact that politicians are making political capital out of that unseemly part of human nature. Or that most of these politicians are personally very near the top of the ladder.. Further, I do not feel great about being called stupid for making these observations.

Re. University numbers.. this was a sot to the middle classes. Successive Governments, in their efforts to woo a growing ‘aspirant’ middle class have realised that little Ben or Sophie might be thick as two Range Rovers but if they can get to university (for a fee, of course) then Mummy and Daddy (not to mention Ben and Sophie) will tacitly approve of any policy that allows it.

There are misunderstandings rife at the moment. For example, the idea that money spent on social care, or even benefits, is somehow ‘lost’. Follow the money. Every penny a poor person has is spent because it has to be. It passes back into the system. Ok, it is not ‘invested’. But neither does it sit in an offshore account. There are fundamental things at work here, which I agree need to be understood properly before we get too heated.

I am leaving this forum now, as I do not wish to make enemies of people I would get along with otherwise.