Any real moral difference between a short term let for admission purposes or permanently moving

Of course there are good parents that use the welfare system. I never said there aren't. I'm not generalising and putting that opinion onto an entire group of people, but what I said does happen and I stand by it.

Not all high earning highly educated parents are good parents either.

There are good and bad in every group of people.

I think, as a generalisation, it is true that the worst schools are in the poorer areas. But which came first? Is the area poorer because the school is crap and more well off parents there ore don't buy into catchment or is the school crap because of "Shameless" style parents?

No, I don't think that all "welfare" parents are like those on Shameless, of course I don't.

Where have I said that 'people on welfare don't care about their children's education'? Where have I made that sweeping generalisation?

You're just phrasing the same thing differently.

What about people on welfare who do care about education. What about the ones who are non violent, who are nice to their children, who send them to school when they should, are not late, help with their homework?

You're putting everyone into one big group and saying they are the cause of these problems.

It's not about welfare. It's about how nice, and how responsible, you are as a parent, whether or not you can manage without welfare assistance for whatever reason.

Thank you filofax.

You put it well.

I didn't read Erebus's comment as implying that children on welfare are causing schools to be dangerous places.

I read it as an area with high levels of people on welfare is more likley to have an udesireable school, and that's what creates these battles.

It's true that a country like ours that has a generous welfare system is going to create parents that don't care much about providing themselves for their children, because they know the state will do it for them. This creates a bad attitude to education, because there is less incentive for people to be well educated. Then that bad attitude from parents is what creates bad schools. Which in turn creates other people that are desparate to keep their children out of those schools.

I wanted to come on and say that theDudesmummy - we rent where we are as we will never be able to buy and the house we rent now is near enough to the best school of the borough (puposefully so as its the only upside of renting as a family).

We hope to stay - have been 2 years already and hope for more but the landlord may choose to throw us all out and sell it at any time and at that point, having got our dc in, we would cease to be living near it - not our fault but distinction needs to be made between our scenario and people renting for 6 months on purpose or renting and not moving in at all.

'There is no incentive to need to be able to afford your children before having them thus we do end up with dangerous schools in welfare dependent areas.'

This implies that children on welfare are causing schools to be dangerous places.

It';s a bit of a dangerous generalisation if I can say so

though no one much equates prejudice against kids from poor families as something that really matters...so feel free to fling it out there

Can you show me, Lurkers, where I've said that in my post exactly?

Oh cheers Erebus...so all children whose parents receive welfare are 'dangerous'? I'm sure that's not what you can have meant. It's so ridiculous...

By the way, renting is not always short-term and renters do not always fail to become part of the local community, I have been a renter for more than twenty years (nothing whatsoever to do with school catchment areas) and have always made plenty of efforts to be part of the communities I have lived in.

I do, on this occasion agree with Bonsoir- Greed, effectively, in all its forms in a massive driver of 'progress' whether we like it or not. We say 'We want good schools for all' but a) we don't define 'good', and b) actually, our 'good' looks less attractive when next door gets 'better'. Much research has been shown to prove that if we earn £12,000 we're happier than if we earn £50,000 IF our neighbours earn £10,000 and £60,000 respectively. It's all relative.

It would, in my opinion, run counter to the British psyche to actually have 'equality'.

On the subject of 'good' and 'bad' schools and people asking why 'in this day and age' we still have 'bad' schools' it's simply because in the UK we have had a welfare system that supported- and perhaps does, to a lesser extent- the endless begetting of children to people who have little interest in them. There is no incentive to need to be able to afford your children before having them thus we do end up with dangerous schools in welfare dependent areas. Tackle one and the other would eventually follow.

Of course I can, but it is the horrible reality.

If private heathcare and private schooling were to vanish, the simple fact it that we would end up paying more in tax to fund the extra people in the system, and the service would be worse than it is already.

I would love us to have a system where the healthcare and the education was so good that there was no need for anyone to prefer private, and in an ideal world, that's what we would have. Everyone should have equal access to high quality services, but they don't. That's the sad truth of the situation, ideals don't come into it.

slavetofilofax Fri 14-Oct-11 10:34:45
If private schools disappeared, the system would be even worse. The battles to get into the good state schools would become monumental, and the system simply woudn't be able to cope with all the extra children.

Same with healthcare. I'm glad that those who can pay do, because without them, waiting lists would be even longer.
__

Oh God I don't know where to start. This is exactly where the tories have been coming from for years and years.

Can you not see beyond those very simplistic statements?

Bonsoir Fri 14-Oct-11 10:32:39
I misunderstand nothing. The driver to be a better human is the same driver that pushes people to be better than the human next door.

_

Really? Do you really think that? I don't agree at all.

If private schools disappeared, the system would be even worse. The battles to get into the good state schools would become monumental, and the system simply woudn't be able to cope with all the extra children.

Same with healthcare. I'm glad that those who can pay do, because without them, waiting lists would be even longer.

I misunderstand nothing. The driver to be a better human is the same driver that pushes people to be better than the human next door.

Where do you think the teachers currently in private schools are going to go?

How do you stop someone setting up a private home-schooling group for a group of local children, employing teachers from the defunct private school? Other than by banning home education entirely. It is simply unworkable and would not affect the top tier of wealth at all.

Lurkers, it would be solved by moving even closer. Madness, I know.

My friends local school was about a two minute walk away (i'm no good at judging distances!) and she rents. When she had to find a new rental property she could have chosen one even closer, as there are a lot of flats in the area, but she chose the one she liked the most thinking that she had a good chance of getting her first choice, and if she didn't get into the closest, she would get into her second or third choice. But it didn't happen, even when all three of her first choices had an intake of 60.

I don't think it is a different issue, because it really is what happens so much of the time.

Is it ok to cheat to guarantee a place at your local school, but not ok to cheat to get a school if you live on the other side of teh road to the boundary, but still close?

It's a very grey area with very fuzzy lines!

What's wrong is not that the parents of child B "push their way in" the School X and child A is therefore left without a place at that school, it's that there is only one good place that can only go to one of these children, and the other one will be left with the knife wielders, spitters, swearers and chair-throwers at School Y. If Schools X and Y were similarly desirable, we wouldn't need this discussion.

(Getting tough on the knife wielders etc. would be a good start.)

Soup, is that really feasible? Are there enough private tutors to go round? I doubt it.

Bonsoir Fri 14-Oct-11 10:20:19
"They exploit people's desire to be better."

People's desire to be better is the driver of all civilisation.
___

No, you misunderstand...I mean better than each other. Not better in the sense of unity and progress. Better in terms of 'my child has better prospects than next door's child'.

If that's the driving force behind civilisation then God help us.

"There's only so much time around a state education for private tutoring.

It wouldn't be feasible anyway...folk need somewhere they can send their kids so they can keep going to work and earning vast sums of money."

Yes, hence the rich child is home educated by a private tutor. State educating never features in their life at all.