to hate it when people talk about "indie" schools

[gobehindabushfgs]

in an attempt to make it sound cool, edgy and alternative? it isn't. it's private education. it's a right-wing, ultimately selfish decision.

"indie"

If private schools were abolished, would you not simply end up with Private By Stealth schools where property in the catchment area for the best schools prices families out?

UnquietDad - define 'unfair' (or 'fair, if you prefer).

It's unfair for some children to be born of parents too lazy to work h ard enough to pay school fees, to have a mother happy to be home dustring not taking on two jobs to pay school fees. Life is full of unfairnesses and restricting the liberty of a parent to improve the life of a child by pickign a good school or reading to it or feeding it good food would be very wrong indeed.

As someone said above the left don't whinge about the rich having to pay for their own care in old age.

Soupy - you would end up with the same amount of tiers but they would be different - so some dcs at top boarding schools would be sent abroad or educated at home.

The ones who didnt or couldnt home educate would, as you say, skew the system by moving or they would just set up free schools like Toby Young's.

Thats at secondary level though - at primary level the pressure on local services would cause them to implode in some places - especially SW London. Where would the money come from to build all these newly needed schools?

Am not really against the idea - am genuinely interested.

[have namechanged back from NY namechange btw and feeling very odd about it...]

The grade enhancement of which you speak Grimma is not sustainable beyond the cushy private school environment. Those at State Grammars usually end up with a better class of degree from similar Universities than their privately educated counterparts - apparently

I know. One of the reasons why after all DHs analyses we were happy when DD preferred the state grammar (yes I know we're bloody lucky we had all the choices except faith open to us)

UnquietDad
Well, it would be "less unfair" because everyone would at least be using the same system.

Exactly.
And we'd all live in the same areas, and we'd all have the same catchments, and we'd all have exactly the same sort of pupils in the school, and no-one would have any tutoring, and no-one would have school trips that some can't go on...

... oh, so we wouldn't have the "same system" at all.

The squeaky wheel (the middle-class parents, of whom I am a member) tend to be more demanding, more articulate, and more persuasive - and so will get better results.

Of course, some people recognise this, and make strenuous efforts to avail themselves of social mobility... except some wicked bastards pulled the bridge up behind them.

My mum, colliery town, went to "the grammar" and was well educated an got a professional job; my dad, another colliery town, went into the pit, the services and dragged himself up. A grammar education would have made things easier as far as the dragging up went.

Now rather than being able to get to a grammar, you go to your local school - and in quite a few areas there's not many good ones - and those who can buy an out for their kids.

I was lucky, my kids went to good schools (yes, CofE), and one went to a reasonable state 6th form college; the other got a scholarship to a provate school. We had good schools that my kids could go to. Some don't.

It's disappointing when the Right speak in a high-flown way of "liberty", when this is usually used as a euphemism for "stuff you can buy." True liberty does not come from the wallet.

SoupDragon - I think we can agree that is an imperfection in the existing system anyway. Is that actually an argument against state education in principle? Lots of factors influence house prices, not just school quality. I don't think we want to get too "Daily Express" about this and bring it all back to the effect on mortgages, do we?

But, UQD, they may be in the same system but they would certainly not be receiving the same education.

I could almost see your argument if abolishing the independent sector who somehow create a system where every child was on an equal footing but that simply would not be true.

In fact, I'm fairly sure the gap between comprehensives in nicer areas and those not would become wider.

It would also, as I said, in areas such as Stockport, bankrupt the LEA. Oh and house prices in better areas would go through the roof.

OneMoreChap - you miss my point in exactly the way I describe above. You're saying the system is imperfect and unfair, and therefore we should support a system which makes it even more unfair in yet another way.

I love the altruistic concern for local authority funding which always comes out on these threads.

Actually, from a very personal pov, I'm not sure it's any more palatable to have a grammar system.

You argue that some children should not have access to a better education purely by virtue of their parents' income.

Should a child therefore have access to a better standard of education simply because genetics and upbringing has resulted in them being cleverer/more able to pass the 11+?

The grammar system was not so great for those kids who didn't pass. It wouldn't be no different if we returned to it either.

Why did you go to grammar school UQD if you detest unfair systems?

Don't the LEA receive a per capita sum from central gov so if there was an influx there would automatically be more funds? So while it would add a bit to overall taxation it wouldnt bankrupt an individual LEA)

Or have I got that wrong?

Yes, but should that not be a consideration? Seriously, how do you propose the LEAs cope if you abolish the private sector?

And you haven't ansered my question about fairness. Do you not recognise that the only children this would affect would be yours and mine? Certainly not poor Johnny growing up in Moss Side. Oh other than if he was bloody clever with supportive parents he could have escaped through somewhere like MGS based purely on his intelligence.

UnquietDad

GTFOOH :)

I'm not missing your point; I'm making another.

As far as I'm concerned you can make whatever choices you like for your children.

I preen educated my kids in the state system.

I refer you to my earlier comment about crab buckets. What will you do to make the system fairer. It's been amply demonstrated that abolish the charity status and so on will only impact the few marginal struggling parents... so you can drag them back into your bucket.

Where's the big idea that will make the system fairer?

Middle class parents will always game whatever exists - and how is that fairer?

Waits with bated breath

yes they do but in some areas, they would quite literally nedd to build two new primary schools and a new comprehensive just to support the influx.

Why did you go to grammar school UQD if you detest unfair systems?

one imagines, because his parents sent him there.

In all these discussions, never blame the child for its parents decisions.

BettyDouglas

Hmm.
Life in general isn't fair.
The grammar school system at least ensured that the poorest weren't denied the best education...

... as they can tend to be now.

Oh I have no issue with grammar schools. What I am saying is yes, it allowed poor kids to escape but only if they were clever.

So I'm asking, is it fairer to discriminate on the grounds of intelligence?

There is a huge irony I think in him prattling on about unfair systems when he had the benefit and privilege of a grammar school education whilst other children in the system at the time were consigned to secondary moderns

Xenia Fri 18-Feb-11 12:06:31
It's unfair for some children to be born of parents too lazy to work h ard enough to pay school fees, to have a mother happy to be home dustring not taking on two jobs to pay school fees. Life is full of unfairnesses and restricting the liberty of a parent to improve the life of a child by pickign a good school or reading to it or feeding it good food would be very wrong indeed.

As someone said above the left don't whinge about the rich having to pay for their own care in old age.

Xenia what a ludicrous, blinkered and twatty thing to say. My parents worked their arse off but did well to afford their own home, both were made to leave school at 15...

Oh I can't even be bothered to answer such a bag of shit.

Capitalism relies on poor people otherwise there's is no capitalism.......so next time your pootling around your enormous home and checking your bank balance just remember without the serfs you'd have no advantage.

So I'm asking, is it fairer to discriminate on the grounds of intelligence?

No - it's not fair to discriminate. It is however, fair to differentiate on grounds of intelligence (and other abilities); the problem with the old GS system was not that they were good but that, by and large, the secondary moderns weren't.

So, instead of fixing the part that was broken, in the interests of fairness they broke the part that didn't need fixing (on the whole; some good comps did emerge but social mobility stats don't indicate it was overall a good thing)

'Capitalism relies on poor people otherwise there's is no capitalism'

Capitalism also relies on having people earning enough to buy its goods and services. So increasing, through good education, the number of people earning good wages is good for capitalism.