Ending Educational Hypocrisy on Mumsnet

[zanzibarmum]

Do you think we might end educational hypocrisy on these threads by having to declare what type of school our DC go to - you know the sort of thing the mumsnetter who wants to abolish faith schools on the grounds of fairness while sending own DC to private schools or the mum whose children are in high-performing postcode protected state schools and wanting to abolish GS.

Or is the apparent inherent hypocrisy ('do as I say not as I do') so favoured by politicians and some MNs part of the fun.

"Because we have atken away the only means by which you can better yourself- a grammar system."

pugsandseals- are you having a laugh?

I mean, you're joking, right?

Right?!

I'm sorry about what's happening to you Morosky - my comment was catty but it wasn't directed at you personally. I'd just dug a letter out of dd's book bag asking me to help her 'practice her spellings' .... so I was feeling rather sensitive about the subject of teachers and their ability to spell. I'm unfortunate enough to be afflicted with the spelling version of perfect pitch - spelling mistakes leap out at me .

I know nothing about you - how could I? - but you also know nothing about me. I never implied that all state school teachers were thick and lazy. My ds's y5 state school teacher is fantastic, thank you.

Anyway that's all off-topic - but I hope you're feeling better soon.

Absolutely not!
If DH had been to a comprehensive instead of a grammar, we would certainly not be in a position to even consider owning a house, let alone choose where we live!
Grammar schools are the only sensible way of doing this.

Cross-post, that was for tethersend!

My kids do go to private school but I do not see my position as particularly hypocritical in that I think that every child deserves the education which I have to pay for twice (through fees and through taxes) i.e. secular and representing the diversity of faiths and ethnicities in the area in which they live. Also, as a teacher in the state system as is dp I am fully aware of the strenghts and weaknesses of state education.

I'd also like to say again that many people who opt for private education would not do so if there was a genuine state comprhensive system i.e. no grammar schools and no faith schools. I wouldn't.

I am not saying that comprehensive education is ok for the rest of you but not for me I'm saying that every child should be given a high standard comprehensive education.

Unlike you grammar school fans. Now that really is despicable.

The problem with getting the 'consumers' of the education system (i.e. parents) galvanised into action to make it better across the board is that change takes so long to take effect.

Most people get hot under the collar about the state of the education system when their dc are about to enter secondary school, which is when the differences between schools become so much more evident. But in 7 years' time, their dc will be out on the other side, and the parents will be getting excited about tuition fees or something which is nothing to do with education.

Very few people have so little self-interest that they will keep a campaign going when they and their nearest and dearest will have no immediate benefit. And there's a sizable chunk of parents (Fiona Millar springs to mind, and there are plenty of them on MN too) who insist that all state schools are perfectly fine, so we don't need to do much about the system anyway ...

"Absolutely not!
If DH had been to a comprehensive instead of a grammar, we would certainly not be in a position to even consider owning a house, let alone choose where we live!
Grammar schools are the only sensible way of doing this."

Great! Let's all go to a grammar school, and then on to university, and then we can all buy a house in our chosen location.

Oh, hang on... who'll empty the bins? All the binmen seem to have 'bettered themselves'

Are you living in the 1890s?

FFS

Fiona Millar doesn't say that though. She campaigns vigorously for anti-faith and anti league tables doesn't she?

Social mobility is therefore not important to you then tethersend?

mimsum it clearly was aimed at me and like you said it was catty but also unnecessary.

I've never got the grammar school mentality. Because they all assume that their kids will and deserve to get in but nobody else's do. I think apart from anything else those people who could look the people in the next street in the eye or even one of their own kids who haven't got in to the grammar school while merrily packing the other kid of to grammar school must have been born without the empathy gene.

You can't on the one hand want improved education for all, but on the other not want the working class to aspire to something better! Life is all about competition and to sit and complain how unfair catchment areas are but not want a fairer system where pupils get placed on merit is SO vain.

There's a word for the assumption that when one thing decreases (social mobility) at roughly the same time as another thing happening (comprhenesive education) that the first thing must be caused by the second thing. What is that word?

Anyway, it doesn't follow. There are lots and lots of reasons for the decline in social mobility.

And you cannot justify writing off the majority of the population into a 2nd class education on the grounds that a small minority of working class kids managed to use grammar schools as a ladder out of poverty.

There's no contradiction there pugs. I want a better education for all regardless of social class.

I want the best standard of education for what a child is likely to do as an adult. If a child has practical skills it is a waste of time to spend all their available education on extra numeracy & literacy! They are better off concentrating on whatever it is they are good at. And yes that would go for all children- including my own!!!

Social mobility is a complete fallacy IMO.

I can't believe you think we live in a meritocracy.

Your posts are actually making me quite sad.

pugs if you think merit alone is what got or gets kids into grammar schools then you are very, very wrong. I read some research recently that shows the grammar schools in this country are actually more exclusive than private schools. Private schools at least offer bursaries to kids from low income families. But there is no way that these families can afford the catchments and private tutoring for grammar schools.

Hmm,
Dad shop worker, daughter at private school- how did that happen then? Magic????
No, hard work & SOCIAL MOBILITY.

Correlation.

We've moved from South London, where we were seriously concerned about secondary choices, to a town (well they call it a city here - pop about 100k) in British Columbia, Canada. Here about 90% children go to their local catchment school, and the standards across schools are very similar. There are two religious schools, but you really have to be very religious to go there - they are strongly religious in ethos and require not only active church involvement, but also parental volunteerism. They are fee charging too (although the fees are compared to the UK very low, so I guess must have some state subsidy too, although given the very large amount of fundraising they do, perhaps not). So only a very small group of people send their children there. The interesting thing is that most people really don't worry about schools, and there is very little discussion about schools, no exams to sit, or schools to visit, applications etc etc. I have to say that it is great.

Oh, God, pugs. You don't honestly believe that some people are naturally born to be factory workers and other people are born to be GPs do you? How very depressing.

Sorry, but the grammar schools I know select by entrance test from a VERY wide catchment. How is that exclusive? Apart from by intelligence!

Ok, now your posts are making me laugh!!!

So, people who can't afford to send their kids to private schools don't work hard?

We have the illusion of social mobility, which is a really handy carrot to dangle in front of the working class to ensure we all work really hard. Look what you could win! A private education for your offspring and your own house if you work hard and marry the right man!

Tell me, if social mobility were truly possible, why hasn't everyone "bettered themselves", as you claim to have?

'What a child is likely to become as an adult' is sadly determined by their parents' income rather than any sort of innate ability you realize. Your scenario is pre Dickension pugs. Why bother teaching the masses to read and write when they're only going to be working in the mills anyway? Makes me sick.

You honestly don't know that grammar schools are socially exclusive???

'Research in 2005 from the influential education think-tank, The Sutton Trust, found that just 3% of children at the top state schools in England were so poor they were entitled to free school meals. The national average was 14%.

The study said 80% of these top schools were selective grammars - and they were even less likely to give places to poor children than the top comprehensives.

So the affluent reap the benefits while the poor continue to lose.'

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/tories-end-support-for-grammar-schools-449034.ht ml