Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain

331 replies

TapselteerieO · 27/01/2011 14:22

Did anyone see this?

I have just watched it and thought there might be a thread here about it. Sadly I am not surprised that it happens but I am still surprised by the statistics.

(Going to get dc from school so might not be on here until later.)

OP posts:
Heroine · 30/01/2011 10:38

and sleeping with delivery men....

danellasmum · 30/01/2011 11:13

Quattro - your SIL's comp isn't in Surrey is it? You could be talking about DS's school even down to the same Ebac score.

Only glimmer of hope was being told he is being considered for a gov initiative called Aim Higher, designed to give some kind of leg up to more able kids from failing schools. Have not yet heard if he has been included but irrelevant anyway as have been told on good authority that this gov are intending to cut all funding for it at the end of this academic year anyway. Think this tells you all you need to know about their commitment to helping kids from working class backgrounds.

TwoIfBySea · 30/01/2011 11:55

I think after the amount of time Labour had to resolve the issue that they could have brought the schools back to some kind of decent standard.

But they didn't.

In fact there were a lot of things Labour could have done but didn't. As a Scot I cannot defend Thatcher one iota but I do think your argument against her does lack reason. Quite funny that you mention her and Hitler, would be quite interesting to hear what kind of illegal war she began that caused the deaths of many. Whereas Blair...

My mother and her sister went to a grammar school and ended up with good careers before and after raising their families. Their brothers didn't and went to a school where they learned a trade and did very well at that.

Now they would all go to the same school and do mediocre. Labour's policy was to bring everyone to the same level and unfortunately that level was not very high.

jackstarb · 30/01/2011 11:57

According to Wikipedia - along with Harriet Harman - St Pauls Girls Schools' political alumni include:

Jane Bonham Carter ? Liberal Democrat peer
Susan Kramer ? former Liberal Democrat MP
Jo Valentine, Baroness Valentine ? member of the British House of Lords
Mavis Tate ? Conservative MP and women's rights campaigner
Shirley Williams ? former Labour Education Secretary and co-founder of the SDP

Appletrees · 30/01/2011 12:56

Twif: I think you have hit the nail on the head.

In a way, those responsible for the collapse of school standards were the curriculum and exam authorities and the "educationaologists" or whatever they are called, who insisted on establishing equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

But this happened with the oversight and approval of successive Labour education ministers who saw off Chris Whitehead and encouraged an anti-elitist mindset.

I don't mind being called an elitist. I am one. I don't think I'm part of an elite but I think every country and society needs one. Labour downgraded Britain's knowledge economy and that's why we're in the poo.

Appletrees · 30/01/2011 12:58

I do believe they wasted large amounts of my money on votes, actually.

There was no thought of maximum benefit for all. It was all about continuing and sustaining power through hypocrisy.

claig · 30/01/2011 13:01

I think that sums it up very well.

MillyR · 30/01/2011 15:25

Phooey, in answer to your post from last night, people from grammar and secondary school do mix outside of school, just as adults in different jobs mix outside of work. DS and his friend from the comp are in the house playing a game together as I type.

I dislike the argument that adult life is about people of all different abilities mixing. Hopefully in their leisure time adults mix with a wide variety of people, but in a great many jobs they don't mix that much (obviously in some public facing jobs one group is the client of the other) and with very good reason.

When I am at work, I don't have to try to sit in work discussions and make decisions about a complex scientific problem while a semi-literate adult with no knowledge of science sits next to me finding it difficult to contribute or follow the argument.

Do you team teach in a classroom with an adult who has no knowledge of your subject area and limited skills in understanding child development and teaching methods? Do they disrupt your lessons by constantly failing to understand the teaching process at the level you are teaching?

If it is unacceptable for you to have to jointly teach with such an adult, why is it acceptable for my son to have to learn sat next to such a pupil?

I don't want to make this personal, but your response is by your own admission angry. If you thank god for what you have when you see people in low status jobs, I question how appropriate it is for you to be teaching in a secondary modern. Many of my family have low status jobs, and they are very proud of them. If you feel thick when watching university challenge, then I doubt you are equipped to teach the most able sixth formers.

In terms of my 'out of sight, out of mind' comment, I meant that as a child I did not feel like a failure next to children from the Grammar because I didn't see them during my working day at school. Sets on the other hand were very visible. I don't think it was necessary for me to see the achievements of grammar school children because they had no bearing on what I was doing, and what I was doing was appropriate to my educational needs at that point. What the grammar schools pupils were doing would not have been appropriate for me.

In much the same way, I didn't need to be familiar with what Oxford undergraduates were doing when I was at a different university. Now that I'm long past undergraduate level, I work alongside people who went to a grammar, and people who went to Oxford. I have never met anyone who thought less of me because I had arrived at the same point as them via a different route. I feel that if I had gone to a grammar I would not be where I am today, because I was not able enough at that point in my life to cope with a grammar environment and that would have held me back in my education.

But you (a secondary modern teacher and therefore the last person who should be adopting a fatalistic approach) are determined to make out that people are branded failures for their whole life purely on the basis that at one point in their life a different educational experience was deemed appropriate for them at that point in their development.

jackstarb · 30/01/2011 16:20

MillyR - Good post Smile.

Phooey - the idea that an important role of a school is to show children that there are people cleverer than them and less able than them, is uncomfortable and fatalistic - maybe you didn't mean it that way?

I don't believe less able pupils need to have a constant reminder of their academic limitations. I would prefer an education system which enabled then to build on their strengths. Maybe 11 is too young for this - but by 13 or 14 it's usually pretty obvious.

It seems to me, that in the name of equality, less able pupils (say bottom 20%) are forced down the same educational path as the brighter pupils. At least at the moment that get released at 16 - soon it will be 18!!

Estelle Morris has been saying interesting things about this (I will hunt down a link).

jackstarb · 30/01/2011 16:30

Estelle Morris calls for national exams at 14 and scrapping of GCSE.

Probably worth a thread of it own!

BuntingHill · 30/01/2011 17:15

I think it is possible for a comprehensive system to work.....here's how you do it....

You take all applicants from all backgrounds, cultures, religions, abilities etc. etc. etc.

Then you stream everybody for every single subject:

SO you can be in Set 1 for drama and Set 6 for maths, Set 3 for P.E. ...

That way everyone will be able to excel in the areas that they excel in.

And everyone who needs support can be in the bottom set getting extra support.

Personally that would have meant me being in the top couple of sets for academic subjects.
But also would have given me extra support in art, music, P.E. and other things I was lousy at!

Re assessment would happen every year and sets would be flexible enough for you to go up and down as appropriate.

This would also mean that top candidates were not dragged down by lousy ones at exam time.

Come on tell me I'm a genius ... no need for special schools or grammar schools or academies at all.

jackstarb · 30/01/2011 17:21

Bunting - I think you seriously under estimate the complexities and pitfalls of ability setting.

I recommend you read The Joy of Sets for a teachers take on the subject.

BuntingHill · 30/01/2011 17:24

I am a teacher!! I also went to a school for a while that, while not 'comprehensive,' did set for every subject. I agree it is not infallible but surely better than segregated education.

jackstarb · 30/01/2011 17:32

Did you read the blog?

There is a comment from a chap from Australia where they made setting work. But they had max class size of 25 and some complicated computer programme to work it out. And only for academic subjects.

I do know of a couple of private schools where setting seems to be very positive. But then most pupils sit the higher GCSE and many get A/A* regardless of sets!!

In the blog - the teacher suggests that administration in most schools is not up to the task of setting.

BuntingHill · 30/01/2011 19:36

I suspect admin. and good management are the key factors we can't seem to rustle up!

newwave · 30/01/2011 20:02

Bagged, I would agree Thatcher did not directly kill anyone but he policies did as they caused distress, misery, homelessness, unemployment.

I wonder how many people became alcaholics, drug addicts and suicidal because of her.

I wonder how many died because of her policies towards the NHS.

I wonder how many died far to young and in poverty because of her

I would put it at thousands.

complimentary · 30/01/2011 20:27

POSH and POSHER.

Here's why the public schoolboys run politics. Public schoolboys are better educated/confident/more articulate/better educated due to not having state intervention. Plus politics is an 'old boys' network.

The old lefty NUT/and Association of Teachers and Lecturers wants to abolish homework from schools but particularly Primary schools.

This was reported in both the Guardian,Times,Telegraph in 2008!

Apparently state educated little darlings cannot cope with the pressure from their pushy parents, it makes them lose confidence!

Disadvantaged children apparently are not helped at home with their homework and this also puts pressure on them.

I wonder if this is the line that Eton and prep schools take?

My son attends a primary, that is one of top for state schools in the country. Gets homework, but only 80% is corrected, due to the child centred policies of the left. "If we mark all the homework, and correct 100% he'll lose confidence".
Twaddle. If that is what is happening at a top primary god help the rest!
Grin

rabbitstew · 30/01/2011 21:33

complimentary - no problem what your ds's school is doing. Surely you can still be a dragon mother??? You don't need a school to whip the little slacker into line when you can instill a bit of discipline in him at home...

If I had a burning desire for my dss to become future prime ministers or policy makers, I would probably send them to public school, because as you say, complimentary, politics is all about networking and power, and public school most definitely gives you a leg up in that direction. There are precious few people in the world who are natural networkers, who can charm their way into the right circles from scratch and work out how to influence people without being a blatantly insincere, irritating and manipulative twerp in the process. Already having the contacts does make life easier. That's the failing of grammar schools and state alternatives - even if they get the academics right, they don't provide much training in the art of getting patronage. They expect being clever, hard working and determined to be enough.

complimentary · 30/01/2011 22:14

rabbitstew. He is very good about doing his homework, has very good school reports etc; but becomes confused because the teacher does not correct some things that are wrong, for fear of losing his confidence. My son then thinks that his work is right and without errors.

It's not about discipline. It is about the school correcting all of the homework and not 80% (and that includes work in the class) of it. how can a child learn when mistakes are not corrected?

Of course my husband and I will take it up with the school. Smile

complimentary · 30/01/2011 22:26

rabbitstew. Perhpas i did not explain it too well. The teacher does not correct all mistakes that a child makes in homework, or school work. That applies to all of the children in his class. Say if it's an essay 10 words spelt wrongly, she only corrects 8, my son then thinks all in his essay is fine. Confused

As said this applies to all of the children in the class, not only my son. I'm not sure if it's the teacher's policy/school policy/curriculum guidance. Whatever it is, I shall find out!

complimentary · 30/01/2011 22:27

I'm talking about the teacher not me!

complimentary · 30/01/2011 22:30

To ALL. Good programme this week. 'Who gets the best jobs' it's about public schools and access to jobs and newtworking.

It's on the BBC did not quite get what channel. Cheers!

rabbitstew · 30/01/2011 22:38

complimentary - don't worry, I was only teasing you, I didn't think you really meant the teachers should discipline the children more.

ps looking forward to learning about how to newtwork! I'm sure Ken Livingstone will be watching that one.

claig · 30/01/2011 22:51

Grin, good one, rabbitstew. I didn't get it on first reading, but now it has clicked. There's nowt wrong with newts.

mathanxiety · 30/01/2011 23:15

BuntingHill, that is how my DD1's high school in the US operated. 3000+ students (700 to 800 every year) were all streamed in every subject from the first day, with multiple levels available in every subject according to ability and performance. Every year, the school sent a large number of students to Ivy League universities and also to do courses in auto mechanics and the like in the local vocational college, and every sort of college in between, as well as students who went straight from school to work in the local grocery shops, etc.

As far as I am aware, every state (public) high school in the US operates like that. The pitfalls and complexities of streaming like that have already been assessed and managed, in a huge country, by thousands of schools, for decades. Administration, good management, and a goal of doing the very best possible for every child seem to be the ingredients missing.

Swipe left for the next trending thread