Alan Bennett on private education

[UrbanDad]

A great quote from AlanBennett, in the Guardian today taken from his talk last summer at King’s College Chapel, Cambridge: “We all know that to educate not according to ability butaccording to the social situation of theparents is both wrong and a waste. Private education is not fair. Those who provide it know it. Those who payfor it know it. Those who have to sacrifice in order to purchase it know it. And those who receive it know it, orshould. And if their education ends without it dawning on them, then that education has been wasted.”

I cannot disagree with any of that.

Does the masses want to bring back capital punishment? A vocal set does but I am not sure the majority holds that position.

You are appealling to extreme examples where the masses may want something that is inconsistent with European policy or individual countries ethos and moral code.

The masses signed up to the broad criteria for assessing the merits of the demands they place on the state. If the death penalty does not pass that criteria, they do get what they want.

...but whether to offer sports, art, etc at expense of other subjects do not throw up such moral and legal challenges.

happygardening - I am entirely with you on the absolute stupidity of filling a child's time with GCSEs. The curriculum of most of them is thin and narrow. While the core subjects are important for enabling DC to move on to the next stage, many subjects are far better taught/learned and examined in other contexts.

I am entirely with you too, happy.

Parents who didn't progress that far in the education system themselves rely on school to advise them. If the school says all the top set children are going to do 14 GCSEs parents are likely to accept that. One of the most important reasons for having schools is so that children of non-academic parents can get the support and knowledge they need and can't get from home.

My understanding is that the people who run state schools (and LEAs before they lost so many of their schools to the academy programme) are under immense pressure to do well in the league tables and to jump through the hoops Ofsted sets up for them. They believe (possibly wrongly) that having a bright child getting 14 As and Bs and maybe a few Cs will give a better league table result than that same child 'only' getting 8 GCSEs but all at A* or A. Educational reasons don't really enter into it.

So what then? Who should impose what they think is best on state schools? With private, you can make your money do the talking.

Agree with happy too. The range and selection are far too limited and skewed in one direction.

happygardening
I can tell you why the state school kids do so many GCSEs.
Ofsted.
Schools have to justify every minute of "contact time" with teachers.
So they have to produce evidence of what they have done with their time.
Which means exams.

mominatrix
I turn 50 in a few weeks time. My school was in London and sometimes gets mentioned in MN threads. I bite my tongue as my views on the place are pretty scathing.
Yes we had music lessons, a pretty poxy orchestra, fantastic drama productions, good day trips (being in London helps for that) reasonable art
BUT
nothing that is as good or as rounded or as inclusive as what my DCs have had at their comp.

On a different thread I looked up NLCS.
Their girls do 9 or 10 GCSEs but also have timetabled slots for all the renaissance stuff without being hidebound by GCSEs
I was impressed.
but NLCS can only get away with that because they are highly selective and do not have to deal with thick / unmotivated / disruptive / SEN pupils.
A luxury state schools do not have.

More proof that Ofsted is not fit for purpose.

grovel
More proof that Ofsted is not fit for purpose.
Its remit has indeed become too wide and too political
BUT
I would not want to go back to the times before it.

Those with kids who can pass the exams for highly selective schools have little contact with, and thus minimal understanding of, the aspirations, capabilities and interests of bottom set children.

There are kids at DCs comp who really, really struggle to get 5 C grade GCSEs.
They need every minute of their school time to help them over that hurdle.
The taxpayer funds the school to ensure that they do, in the hope that they will be able to go on to earn money and pay tax rather than claim benefits.

Everything beyond that is frankly a luxury.
Alan Bennett probably has very hazy memories of his primary school friends who failed the 11+
But they are the people who built and repaired the things he relied on.

I have been lurking on this thread but I feel compelled to add my views for what they are worth.
I received a very bog standard education in a very small comprehensive school (500 pupils) in South Wales. My mother and father neither had the inclination or the means to provide additional cultural outings. I know I did not reach my academic potential because of inadequate teachers. Yet when I left school with five o levels and two a levels I managed to continue my education achieving a BA and MA with the open university.
Probably as a result of my love of learning I have ensured that my dd has been brought up to appreciate the arts despite us not being close to London I still manage to take her to galleries, exhibitions etc. in addition I pay for music and additional French lessons.
What I am trying to say is that school is there to provide a basic educational standards. Anything else as op have said has to be provided for additionally. Is this fair probably not but coming from an environment that everything i have achieved i have had to pay for myself makes me believe that if its wanted enough people will do there best for their children in order to enhance their education. Learning is a life long journey and its therefore up to us as parents and our children to continue and enhance this journey however this is achieved

Quick question.

Everyone talks about the "disadvantaged" kids. Well, there are a LOT more kids in developing countries who are more disadvantaged than they are. Should we say that all of our schools should only offer education until 12, and focus on the three R's, so that the UK's kids who currently have the luxury of free education all the way until 18 do not disadvantage those kids???

If not, then why? Are those kids not as worthy of education as British kids? Or are you just accepting that the world isn't fair, and you have to draw a line somewhere... preferably, though, not in your own backyard.

I'm just raising this argument to the next level.

TalkinPeace, I've learnt a lot from your posts and appreciate them. I expect you're right about Ofsted being (on balance) a plus. And, yes, my knowledge of lower set children in comprehensives is minimal (well, 100% anecdotal or based on reality TV) - which is why your firsthand experience is so useful.

grovel
Its one of the interesting things I find on MN.
Most of the site seems to be pretty balanced demographically - I have two other main posting areas.
But the education boards are spectacularly skewed towards rich mothers of high achieving children.

If one only read the secondary board, one could assume that 50% of the country will apply to Eton and the other 50% will get into a grammar school.

But the fact is that 93% of kids are at state school.
The vast majority of those at non selective schools
many of them at the local non selective school
and the vast bulk are in the bulge of the bell curve.

The parents of those children find this board a spectacularly unwelcoming place so avoid it.
There are lots of discussions about school and homework and stuff in normal schools - but they happen elsewhere on MN.

Its one of the reasons I'm glad my kids have attended comps.
They understand the whole range of abilities and aspirations far better than I ever did until I started work at 21.

Snowbells - the alternative is to endeavour to enable those children to stay at school until later i.e. see that everyone at least has the chance of secondary education.

Snowbells- you're not using the "people in the developing world have a much harder time- so why not try and improvise things for them before trying to sort out the inequalities in our country" argument, are you?

Snowbell is simply extending the logic behind some of the arguments given here. Very valid extension, I would say.

This country can barely afford to educate its own children.
Why should it pay to educate those elsewhere?
Due to UK import habits we supply the wages to those in the other countries.
They can choose to spend it how they wish without the joys of UK interference.

The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. If we can't afford to educate our children to a decent standard there is something very badly wrong.

"Snowbell is simply extending the logic behind some of the arguments given here. Very valid extension, I would say."

So we leave the inequities in our education system because we can't fix the inequities in everyone else's?

Before stating that the masses want to bring back capital punishment I googled it. If someone could explain in simple terms how to link it in I would have done this, I found it on a BBC website confirming what I thought I would already knew, given the chance the masses would bring back capital punishment. As it currently stands I also suspect that the masses egged on by UKIP and the DM would vote for us to leave the EU as far as I understand most economists, and organisations like the CBI believe this would be a serious error of judgement. Our government of what ever persuasion has a duty to protect the country from the masses.
Muskey I admire you ability to ensure your DD appreciates art maybe I'm just lazy but I just feel I don't have the time to go into London every weekend to an exhibition, go to the opera or take my DC's to extra language classes.

No, just we do not regard this situation as inequitable and even if we do, we would not offer similar solutions. If the problem is the same, why aren't the solutions similar?

Furthermore, you are holding the position that the difference between private and state is unfair. Some of us do not agree. Snowbell's post is not necessarily saying that there is unfairness.

AllMimsyWereTheBorogoves
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. If we can't afford to educate our children to a decent standard there is something very badly wrong.
Well yeah.
Have a look at the USA to see the richest country in the world really screw it up.

The UK is horrifically indebted. The deficit is rising. The current account deficit is a night mare. Public sector borrowing is fiddled using PFI.

Within 5 years the cost of adult social care will swallow up over half of everything that councils spend, squeezing out everything else including schools.

"Have a look at the USA to see the richest country in the world really screw it up."
At the risk of being petty it's Qatar that has the highest GDP generally considers by economists to be an indicator of wealth. All these lovely figures are available on the wonderful and informative CIA fact book, it makes great bed time reading and is perfect for correcting inaccuracies like the one talkin has just made.

happygardening
You are confusing per capita GDP with actual GDP
and of course Qatar does not count among its population the millions of indentured labourers who are building the world cup stadia and everything else.
On raw GDP per country, the USA whumps everything else
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
just to use the source you chose

talkin the ONS actually regard GDP per capita as a more accurate figure of economic growth and success or not.

OK, then Qatar is the richest country so should have the best schools.

Oh except that their state schools are dire.
The curriculum which for my sins I've read in detail is awful
it actively discourages independent thought
wants rote learning
no individual study
and sure as heck no renaissance thinking