Do you think you can be a socialist and

[Swedes]

1. Pay for your child to be independently educated?
2. Buy a house in right catchment for the right school?
3. Feign religion to get your child into a faith school?
4. Object to a lottery system for school places with urban areas (ignoring all convenient environmental issues)?
5. Vote Tory? (because some people seem particularly confused)

'I agree, buying a house for a school place is no different to buying a school place.'

I can see your point (and in general I agree with you), but if we are talking about specific socialist principles, it IS different because the school is still a state school, not privately owned.

Although I guess buying your own house might be a socialist no-no if you take 'public ownership' to its logical conclusion.

That's the essential problem with the system - it pretends everyone is the same and will get the same education. They won't, and don't, and in any case shouldn't necessarily.

Swedes, are these questions leading somewhere? I can't imagine no.7 happening unless you are on a very low income and are offered a bursary, which you will have applied for anyway.

Swedes - again, I think feigning is just plain wrong, but I don't think it is either socialist or anti-socialist.

my parents are socialists and public school educated. i went to state school and left at 16. i have a good job but not a large salary.

I do think that private schools are just plain non-socialist under all circs, because they are privately owned.

My sons' school give 3 completely free academic scholarships every year. They also give an extra one in the sixth form. Separate to this they give bursaries according to parental income up to 100% in some cases.

Nice question...I would refuse, I think. Unless my child really really wanted to go!!!
The faith school thing is awful on so many levels...lying is pretty bad, but what really amazes me is why anyone would want their child to be indoctrinated into a religion, much less a religion they don't even belive in themselves!!
Weird..
I struggl with whether I would pay for private tuition if my child was not achieving their (presumed)potential...DD1 is only 5, though, so hopefully I have a few years to work out my middle class socialist angst vs high achieving parent dilemma.

That's a new one on me then , swedes. The local independents here only offer bursaries for those on very low income - £13,000 or under. There are scholarships, but never for the full fees.

Sprockster - SO you could say to your friends: "I still read the Guardian and all that, but Tabatha was just desperate to get into that gingham dress and straw boater"

Mentioned because have come under attack from other members of the Labour Party for privately educating their children, particularly Diane Abbott who described herself as having socialist beliefs & had previously been critical of the PM & HH for their private ed choices.

Have all at various points distanced themselves from the socialist tag.

Easier perhaps to be a socialist if you have a good school within catchment?

policywonk - what about private nurseries? Are they OK and if yes why?

Do they do it just to upset and confuse the pinky parents?? To cause a sort of socialist meltdown in Labour-voting households? Yeuch, messy...

I don't think the socialist ideal of state education is 'evreyone is the same and should get the same', a kind of one size fits all. I think that it is more that education is a right and necessary/useful/important/worthwhile etc in society and therefore should be free.

The idea of it being all the same is more about there being equal access to provision. So every child should be able to learn and access education appropriate to them.

I realise that this is currently not the case, which is why socilaist campaigning might focus on 'A good local school for every child' and 'No tuition fees' as well as broadening the curriculum and disposing of tests/league tables and academies and on and on....

LOL. Am I the final authority now?

I'm really not sure that it is in any way possible to function in a late-capitalist [see what I did there?] society and operate on strictly socialist principles. You would have to live in a teepee on common ground, grow your own veg, kill your own pigs, never buy anything from a private business... I really think it's a bit much to ask.

I think it's quite reasonable to say 'I believe in socialism, broadly speaking, but in order to function in this society I'm going to have to make some compromises'.

If it was pink gingham, I wouldn't stand a chance.
Private nurseries are surely childcare? Until the state provides 8 til 6pm childcare, private nursery or nanny/cm is the only option for full time working parents; or do you have to be a SAHM to be a true socialist?

"Easier perhaps to be a socialist if you have a good school within catchment?" Much easier, I'd say.

Private nurseries are surely a wholly incomparable area, because there is little or no state provision which will fit in with work hours.

Sure easy to not have to make tricky decisions.
I would personally say those mps you mentioned aren't socialist in my head anyway, but that's off topic a bit.

It depends on degrees though. WHich is why this can't be answered without definging the socialism/socialist you are talking about.

I have friends who have actively chosen to live and work in deprieved areas because it fits with their socialist activism prinicples. They not only send their dcs to local 'failing' (by OFSTED labels) schools but take low-paid jobs where they can do bloody brilliant union and socialist campaigning in there local communities.

But I don't think you have to do all that to be a socialist.

It all depends on your definition.

no.

the whole point of socialism is that if everyone sent their child to the nearest school, all schools would be equal, because in a socialist society, nobody would be paying for housing anyway - it would be allocated as per need.

I don't thing you can be a socialist in a capitalist society ... and it's notable that most famous socialists do not have children.

lol 'late-capitalist' &

Socialist colleague happy with sending his child to grammar school because she got there on merit alone. Disagreed v much with fee paying.

no, apart from the lying to get into a faith school. that would be marvellously anarchic, because the fact that faith schools can discriminate on the grounds of religion with state backing is so ludicrous that lying to get round is almost moral .
a lottery system is just a bad system, when schools should serve their community. socialists believe in community, you know. would you like me to send you a booklet, Swedes?

no
no
no
no

shit no- thats more than confused -tas like elton john declaring he is straight

Heh Harpsi shall we start handing out the pamphlets now?

Confused myself over his stance but he acknowledged this inconsistency of sending his child to grammar at the same time as denouncing the system that allowed inequality. Felt he was only using the system in which he felt forced to operate.

He was also very anti-institutions e.g. marriage but to ensure provision for his dd after his death, he and long term partner got married during a break & free lesson, telling no one, and school dinner was his 'wedding breakfast' lol.

Heated - But if your colleague's child was offered a free place on merit?