Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain

Claig - no, Bexley parents understandably see the current choice: coach your child to study with the top 20%, or let them fail and study with the plebs. There is very little difference between grammars and non-grammars, and even private schools for that matter, other than the young clientele.

If I was a Bexley parent, I'd try my damndest to get my kid into a grammar. But then, I'm middle-class and educated myself, so phooey jr isn't moving up in the world, but maintaining their birthright. Grammars are packed with middle-class kids with parents who have the savvy to play the system.

Grammar schools do not promote social mobility one ounce and by their very nature are divisive.

Do all the pro-grammar posters think that academies are a good thing then? A failing school I know (non-grammar, therefore it's clientele are the 80% of kids not in grammars) is converting to academy status. This means it will be in charge of it's own budget, and will not contribute to council-run SEN services which are reliant on schools to survive. It can become selective. Given the choice, no school would accept kids with special needs, poor kids, kids with difficult homes. It affects their results, which makes them 'fail'.

The near total destruction of the grammar school system, which did give a fighting chance to 'ordinary' children to make it to the top, is the saddest chapter in England's education history.

But public schoolboys are part of the globalization package, aren't they? Who runs the multinationals and is free to live in any country that offers them the best tax haven, but the global elite of super-wealthy, amongst whom one can include an awful lot of public schoolboys? That's why London in particular is becoming such a great playground for the super-wealthy, because our government of public schoolboys thinks it does the economy good to let them come over to play here (rather here than elsewhere, eh?). Or at least, it's not necessarily doing the economy good as a whole in the long term (it's a phenomenally precarious position to be in), more the incomes of the select elite of which the public schoolboys running our country are a part. The rest of us can be the personal slaves of the select elite, providing them with pampering services (nannying, bodyguarding, house cleaning, legal advice if we're a bit more clever, etc) and being kept so busy doing that that we don't have any time to create anything more worthwhile or longlasting for ourselves, or to ask what will happen when our playground gets boring. And heaven forbid we suggest any of that wealth should be filtered down a bit more, so that our apparently wealthy country can actually benefit from any of that wealth - if we did that, all the money would run a mile and leave us with nothing, because everything we do is based around servicing the global elite. It's far better to appear to be a wealthy country than to actually behave like one, because if you start behaving like one, then all the money evaporates, along with the public schoolboys and playboys who suddenly think Monaco looks good at this time of year.

I think whether or not public school boys run the UK government is increasingly irrelevant. In a world of globalization and huge multi-national corporations, the UK government has less and less control over our lives.

What Cameron/Clegg/Osbourne do about the fiscal deficit is small change compared to what China's premier Wen Jiabao decides to do on Yuan currency revaluation. Or what the Fed's Ben Bernanke decides on US interest rates. Economic growth and job opportunities depend on the relative attractiveness of the UK to multi-nationals. The UK government can try to make us look good but if other countries offer a better package, the jobs go elsewhere.

Let the public school boys run the government if it makes them feel important; but don't think they run Britain as their influence on that drops every year.

But Ed Balls did blame the schools. He didn't throw his hands up in the air and admit defeat as most progressives do. He said things must change. He wanted to see improvements. He demanded an increase in standards. Otherwise, he said, he would turn them into academies and try to improve the education of the children that way.

He was not despondent, he had hope, he knew things could be improved. Did he succeed? Did standards increase?

Why do you think parents in Bexley are so keen to get their children into the Bexley grammar schools? Because they don't want to send their children to schools that Ed Balls thinks are not up to standard, schools that he gives warnings to. Some progressives want to abolish Bexley grammars and turn them all into schools that receive warnings.

Without outing myself, I know all about Bexley, failing schools and academies.

Failing schools often have low ability students. My school is in the top 5% of 'value added', but if you look at results, it looks appalling. Teaching in a grammar school is a walk in the park.

Don't blame the schools or the teachers at 'failing schools', blame the system that makes it impossible to persuade children there that they aren't, in fact, failures, and that they should behave like angels, work hard and aim high, because life will reward them for it

Why didn't Tony Blair send his children to the schools where children have "equal educational opportunities". One rule for them, one rule for us? That is the motto of the progressives, and they laugh at us for believing otherwise.

some of the failing non-selective schools that Ed Balls told to change their ways, otherwise he would turn them into academies, which are slowly improving standards.

how are we going to do that? Is Eton the same as some of the failing schools that Ed Balls told to change their ways in Bexley?

It's not hippyish to think we should be giving all our children equal educational opportunities until at least 16, is it?

Rabbit fair points. Not ideal but the best solution for the advancement of the country. I currently teach in a sec modern though and refuse to accept that we should be so mercenary as to write off 80% of wonderful kids aged 11. And they're not all hairdressers or brickies - they have career ambition.

feel the love, there's a lot of new age, hippy thinking. It's all very progressive.

Can't find a link jack - on my phone so not v efficient. It is a fact though.

Found this about Kent though: here

Rabbit wonders whether loving in hope was a mistype or deliberate...

Rabbit.

"Its alway been unfair for the majority"...so it has...But we must love in hope that things can change; if only marginally. cheers "Gabby"

But of course, phooey - it's the poor man's private school (well, let's be honest, the middle class, moderately wealthy man these days) - you have to divide its children off to make it special. It saves the middle classes money not having to struggle to pay extra for the real thing. That way, their children can learn to look a little bit and sound a little bit like the real thing and hopefully mix with the real thing at Oxbridge without sticking out too much. And the State can say it's doing a good job educating those worth educating and excuse seriously underfunding education for the majority, because you don't really need much of an education to become a hairdresser, childcare assistant or builder, anyway, do you??? And we do need more hairdressers, childcare assistants and builders than politicians, journalists, accountants, bankers and lawyers, so everything's peachy. And if a few people are left by the wayside because of the dramatic division between those who pass and those who fail, despite the tiny differences in genuine ability and potential amongst those who only just passed and who only just failed, and the very early age at which all these decisions are made - well, that's life, isn't it? It's always been unfair for the majority - why on earth would a civilised country want to aspire to something better than that for the people living in it? Equality is not what made our leaders great, after all (oops - I mean our country, don't I???...).

small white cat....you have NOT put you political cards on the table. Stop fencing and let it all hang out. Dave would be proud of you. Cheers "Gabby" with bated breath

It is quite amusing that the Tories didn't actually win the election despite all the extra millions poured into target seats by their billionaire friend 'Lord' Ashcroft. The one who lied about paying full UK taxes on all his income in order to sit in the House of Lords and make the laws the rest of us UK taxpayers have to obey.

All that privilege, all that power, all those posh ex-public school boy connections and they still couldn't buy the election.

Shame the Lib Dems propped them up, though. Without actually modifying any of the extreme Tory policies, like privatising the NHS.

Phooey - the link?

And aren't we talking about what's best for the country as a whole. How do we educate our brightest pupils and ensure they reach their potential? Given we want a wider diversity of people in the top jobs.

In the majority of cases, if you can afford fees you either have family money or a well paid job (I know some people don't - i mean generally). Your friends and contacts will be in the same social strata, so the expectation is that little x will get a leg up in the world of law/politics/etc because mummy or dady know someone there. Then, public schools tend to increase levels of confidence and expectation, and also (hate to say it) a feeling of being a bit better than everyone else. Hence Cameron's lot coming up with fantastic 'we know best' ideas - rejig the NHS/ rejig schools/ rejig benefits etc because they fully believe they know how to run the country, and life would be so much better if we did what they said. So (famous example) Osborne decides it's ridiculous to pay HR taxpayers CHBEN and that must cease without the small detail of the maths involved.
I went to uni and honestly, the public school boys i knew were just such overly confident eejits. But, at the time, i was slightly in awe of them.

Arg why do the vast majority on here see grammar schools as a positive thing? They are incredibly divisive, all they do is divide children into successes or failures aged 11, and educate the 20% who pass separately! In what world can that be fair?

If you'd be happy fir your child to attend a secondary modern (what the other 80% of kids, the failures) attend, then by all means demand a return to grammars across the country.

It is a fact that counties which use grammars do less well overall than counties which educate comprehensively. Look at Buckinghamshire and Bexley. They have the most failing schools, and their results are overall lower.

Grammar schools are the result of selfishness. If your child gets in, if they're one of the lucky (or heavily coached) 20%, you're delighted, of course you are, little johnny only has to mix with other bright children.

Lifeinlimbo You're right about needing grammar schools back and that was one of Andrew Neil's points, I think, and also that he himself was the product of a grammar school in Scotland. But let's be realistic, we'll never get the grammar schools back, will we? There's no money and not much political will either because the ones at the top (all parties!) do not see it as a vote-winner, quite the reverse IMO. Many voters today have no recollection or experience of the grammar school system and would be very doubtful about voting for it to be reinstated.

Rabbitstew. You are exactly right.

Why put into a power an ordinnary man lived 30 years in Stoke-on-Trent, knew the area, when you can have the a Lord's son? 'Tristram Hunt' has all the right contacts writes for the Guardian, knows the so called intellectuals, Hobsbawn, and the elevated Milliband Family.

You are exactly right about contacts. It's one of the reasons I will send my son to a public school, it's not just about the education , but the contacts.
Yes, I had contacts at my school, normally the headmistress/teachers, when you bunked off every week!
As Thatcher is reported to have said 'is he one of us?' when promoting people to the cabinet, (in fact, a book was written about her called 'one of us')No all parties 'employ' or elevate 'their own', it's not right, it's not a true representation of the people, but there it is.

But to fill all the positions with competent, state educated people would be letting down your old school. Surely paying all those school fees should buy you something more than an education?