Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain

[TapselteerieO]

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.)

Maybe there is more trust in the US that things will be done properly and not subject to bribery, corruption and incompetence?

It should certainly be possible, particularly given the assistance of modern computers, to keep better track of individual pupils' attainment and progress in different subjects at school, if there is someone competent to administer it.

Rabbitstew. Ken Livingstone, does not need to 'network!' the old git, has networked enough with his Marxist mates over the years to put him fairly and squarely on the map!

Ken went to Tulse Hill Comp(so all is not lost! ) 'he did not pass the eleven plus,in 1956, but still 'managed' a few O levels'.

Ken is known for 'his gardening and breeding newts. He was the first person to breed the Western Dwarf Clawed Frog, Hymenshirus Curtipes in captivity!'

'He joined the labour party in 1968'. Wikipedia. So posters do not despair if your child has to attend a Comp, he/she could have a career in politics, like our dear old freind Ken.
.

It's a big if though isn't it?

To look at it from the administration/ management perspective a school which has pupils with a very wide range of abilities is more of a challenge to administer, than a school with a narrow ability range.

Obviously effective setting and streaming (or tracking as they call it in the US) is do-able. The US has a longer experience at it than the UK (they never went down the academically selective schools route).

But the cost of getting it wrong can be just as harmful for individual pupils as any other 'selectivion method'.

And, even in the US there has been a move to mixed ability teaching.

Sorry - last post aimed at Rabbit.

Yes. Jackstarb. It was very much tongue-in cheek. if you really want a career in politics the public school is the way to go.

Albeit the 'right public school' and the 'right' 'University' apparently according to my DH even the LSE is not the 'right' one! ( I attended it).

Yes, it is a big if. But surely the 75% of children who do not get into grammar schools in a selective system still have a very wide range of abilities to cater for? (And, in reality, so do the grammar school 25%). And by selecting at age 11, you are effectively dumping 75% of children in the lower sets, or forcing them to study for different qualifications, for the rest of their school careers. Some people will be wrongly placed in a grammar school environment when it turns out they may be bright but aren't academic, and others may be wrongly placed in the alternative, when it turns out that actually, they might have done well in a grammar school after all. Surely it is easier to move sets in a well run single school than to attempt to move to an entirely different school partway through your school career? In my experience, it was a minute proportion of children who ever transferred up to grammar school and none ever went the other way - in fact, as I went to quite an academic grammar school, the one girl in my year who did move over in the 2nd year from her Secondary Modern was the first person ever to have done it (and the last while I attended said school). The proportions of successful appeals were marginally higher at the other grammar schools, but not really that high, and only tended to take place within the first year, based on appeals over 11 plus results being an unfair reflection of the child's ability at the age of 11, rather than on appeals relating to the child having blossomed academically at the Secondary Modern.

So isn't the separation more about deciding well in advance of adulthood what sorts of careers the State wishes to push children towards? The ones who pass an exam at 11 shouldn't be distracted by alternative "soft" options and practical subjects, which might otherwise seem appealing and maybe even suit their interests better; and the others shouldn't be wasting their time studying for something that other children are likely to be better at than them (even though success in these subjects is likely to bring better prospects for a well paid career in later life). And isn't it also about separating off those likely to be better behaved and compliant from those who are more likely to include a minority of extremely disruptive pupils? Is the grammar school system, with decisions made at age 11, the best method we can come up with for deciding children's futures?

Maybe if there weren't quite such a colossal divide between rich and poor, career choices could be made slightly more on the basis of need within Society, rather than salary/profit. The divide between the haves and have nots is getting so great, it's hardly surprising career choices amongst those with any choice are increasingly being made in terms of income as a priority over other considerations. Whilst that remains the case, surely there will be a very poor connection between qualifications obtained and qualifications required by the country?

rabbit - I'm not trying to defend selection at 11. Just pointing out the the alternative is not that great either.

You are judging the 11+ system by looking at those who 'fall through net'.

I'm pointing out that in many comprehensive schools (although not all) the top 25% or so, bright pupils get a worse academic education, and yet most of the other 75% pupils don't particulary benefit from this 'sacrifice'.

Unless setting is well managed - pupils can end up stuck in the wrong set for years anyway.

Where are these schools that only let children do practical or academic subjects?

Jocelyn Bell failed the eleven plus and went to a secondary modern. So I find it very difficult to believe that secondary moderns have ever prevented their students from getting a truly academic education, or else how do you explain her becoming one of the world's leading scientists?

She's in a bit of a minority, isn't she? It's like saying my shit smells like roses, so it's a bit difficult to believe no-one else's does. And it seems odd to me that the atmosphere at my primary school at the time of the 11 plus was so dire, with those expected to pass being told they were "posh" and "you think you are better than us," if those expecting to go to the Secondary Moderns didn't think they were getting a raw deal.

I know this debate has focused on education but I think a potentially more effective source of divide can be found in work experience. My dd is 16 and at her school they are required to do one week's work experience following GCSEs. She can either arrange it herself or the school will sort something out. Dh and I have a number of friends, including dd's godparents, who have senior city jobs (finance and law) so dd has lined up 4 different opportunities. This means that when she applies for gap year jobs or internships her CV will stand out - based on my experience as an interviewer for these things. This will give her an advantage over children whose parents are not as well connected - and is completely independent of our education choices for her.

I think this is extremely unfair but am not sure what can be done about it. I'm not going to stop my dd benefitting - she has had to send in applications and make all the arrangements herself - we didn't do it for her but there is no denying that her godfather is unlikely to have considered her application on a fair basis against any others he received.

if you want to crusade for greater equality I do think that improving access to work experience is a potentially more effective campaign.

Also, if we want more people from working class backgrounds to be inolved in politics, then the Labour party should allow some of these people to stand in their safe seats.

Instead, they shift off local committed activists, and parachute in their PPE pals from Oxbridge. Yes, I'm looking at you Yvette and Ed.

Mrs Wobble Don't stress - from your post it appears you dd has many advantages (professional parents, mother with interviewing experience, wide access to successful role models). The work experience is small beer in comparison.

Until we remove babies at birth (or make them in test tubes) true equality is an impossible dream.

I'd settle for greater social mobility and an education system which encourages bright pupils, whatever their background.

"Instead, they shift off local committed activists, and parachute in their PPE pals from Oxbridge. Yes, I'm looking at you Yvette and Ed."

TBF - they have worked hard on their northern accents.

Mrs Wobble has a point.

The current set of MPs, particularly those involved at cabinet or shadow cabinet level, all entered politics in a similar way.

PPE at Oxbridge.
A research or assistant post at Westminster.

The first is tricky enough to get, particulalry if your school advised you that dropping French and taking textiles was a good idea.

But the second is nigh impossible unless you have enough connections to get you that post, and have enough cash to keep you topped up should you get it, because the salary is low for London.

Mrswobble, I agree. The previous government was meant to be looking at ways of making work experience and unpaid employment that led to professional careers more fair.

Rabbitstew, I don't know if she was in a very small minority. Lots of people who went to my school (comprehensive in a grammar area) went on to enter a range of professions. I think there would have to be more research into the outcomes from selective education. Most of this thread (including my posts) has been based on anecdote and assumptions.

But we all seem to be holding strong opinions based on assumptions. I don't think that is a good thing.

""TapselteerieO Thu 27-Jan-11 14:22:45
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.)""

Yes I saw it, and it didnt surprise me.

However what is never stressed by the likes of Andrew Neil is that State schools have been underfunded since Thatcher cut income tax for all British workers in the 80's and it remains so today.

Hi, MillyR. There is a difference between comprehensives and secondary modern schools. Where I went to school, they still had secondary modern schools and they most definitely did not have high academic expectations for their pupils, nor did they offer the same subjects as the grammar schools. In the days of O-levels and CSEs, where I lived they only offered CSEs and on conversion to GCSEs they seldom offered the higher GCSE papers. The whole point of them when they were originally set up was to provide a different type of education for those who did not pass the 11 plus.

It's ALWAYS Thatchers fault, in your opinion! if she didn't appear in your post, I would have been shocked!

Rabbitstew, I agree that the situation as you describe it is very divisive and is determining people's life chances in a detrimental way. If we replaced comprehensives with a selective system nationally, it would have to give pupils in all schools a decent range of subjects and option choices at GCSE.

I suppose we are slowly replacing comprehensives with academies and specialist schools, but that is a whole other thread.

Litchick I think the top three parties are all guilty, not just Labour, of favouring there own kind and not giving people outside of their own very small, privileged sphere any chance to even stand for safe seats.

I think local candidates should be elected by local people, then we will get people who are much more likely to represent the people in their own constituency.

I actually checked out the candidates who were standing in my area to see if they actually lived here, one lived in Edinburgh, atleast 3 hours away from here, and had no home in the area.

No doubt they are all guilty, but of the three I would expect Labour to actively support local working class candidates.

The sheer hypocracy is breath taking.

And they wonder why so many are leaving the party.

Labour discovered that a good looking package is more appealing to many people than the actual content.

To be honest, in the safe seats, the package is by the by.

The party took a very cynical decision to parachute in its great and good to those seats.