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.)

Why do you think parents in Bexley are so keen to get their children into the Bexley grammar schools? Because they don't want to send their children to schools that Ed Balls thinks are not up to standard, schools that he gives warnings to. Some progressives want to abolish Bexley grammars and turn them all into schools that receive warnings.

But Ed Balls did blame the schools. He didn't throw his hands up in the air and admit defeat as most progressives do. He said things must change. He wanted to see improvements. He demanded an increase in standards. Otherwise, he said, he would turn them into academies and try to improve the education of the children that way.

He was not despondent, he had hope, he knew things could be improved. Did he succeed? Did standards increase?

I think whether or not public school boys run the UK government is increasingly irrelevant. In a world of globalization and huge multi-national corporations, the UK government has less and less control over our lives.

What Cameron/Clegg/Osbourne do about the fiscal deficit is small change compared to what China's premier Wen Jiabao decides to do on Yuan currency revaluation. Or what the Fed's Ben Bernanke decides on US interest rates. Economic growth and job opportunities depend on the relative attractiveness of the UK to multi-nationals. The UK government can try to make us look good but if other countries offer a better package, the jobs go elsewhere.

Let the public school boys run the government if it makes them feel important; but don't think they run Britain as their influence on that drops every year.

But public schoolboys are part of the globalization package, aren't they? Who runs the multinationals and is free to live in any country that offers them the best tax haven, but the global elite of super-wealthy, amongst whom one can include an awful lot of public schoolboys? That's why London in particular is becoming such a great playground for the super-wealthy, because our government of public schoolboys thinks it does the economy good to let them come over to play here (rather here than elsewhere, eh?). Or at least, it's not necessarily doing the economy good as a whole in the long term (it's a phenomenally precarious position to be in), more the incomes of the select elite of which the public schoolboys running our country are a part. The rest of us can be the personal slaves of the select elite, providing them with pampering services (nannying, bodyguarding, house cleaning, legal advice if we're a bit more clever, etc) and being kept so busy doing that that we don't have any time to create anything more worthwhile or longlasting for ourselves, or to ask what will happen when our playground gets boring. And heaven forbid we suggest any of that wealth should be filtered down a bit more, so that our apparently wealthy country can actually benefit from any of that wealth - if we did that, all the money would run a mile and leave us with nothing, because everything we do is based around servicing the global elite. It's far better to appear to be a wealthy country than to actually behave like one, because if you start behaving like one, then all the money evaporates, along with the public schoolboys and playboys who suddenly think Monaco looks good at this time of year.

The near total destruction of the grammar school system, which did give a fighting chance to 'ordinary' children to make it to the top, is the saddest chapter in England's education history.

Claig - no, Bexley parents understandably see the current choice: coach your child to study with the top 20%, or let them fail and study with the plebs. There is very little difference between grammars and non-grammars, and even private schools for that matter, other than the young clientele.

If I was a Bexley parent, I'd try my damndest to get my kid into a grammar. But then, I'm middle-class and educated myself, so phooey jr isn't moving up in the world, but maintaining their birthright. Grammars are packed with middle-class kids with parents who have the savvy to play the system.

Grammar schools do not promote social mobility one ounce and by their very nature are divisive.

Do all the pro-grammar posters think that academies are a good thing then? A failing school I know (non-grammar, therefore it's clientele are the 80% of kids not in grammars) is converting to academy status. This means it will be in charge of it's own budget, and will not contribute to council-run SEN services which are reliant on schools to survive. It can become selective. Given the choice, no school would accept kids with special needs, poor kids, kids with difficult homes. It affects their results, which makes them 'fail'.

*its

Phooey - not all the LEAs with grammar schools do badly - look at the results in Trafford.

Phooey, how is your local academy allowed to become selective?

Isn't the law that an academy can only select if it was already selective before it became an academy?

Schools will never improve when people keep claiming that there is no real difference between the teaching standards at different schools.

I went to a comprehensive school in a grammar area. I never felt like a failure. The existence of grammar schools didn't make me like a failure anymore than being in the second set for maths made me like a failure at maths. DS is at a grammar school, but DD may end up at the comprehensive. I will not feel like she is a failure. I will just be glad that both of children had the chance to try and obtain a really wonderful educational experience. It is better to offer it to some of the population than none at all.

What is this obsession with failure just because someone else does better than you at some point in their life? It doesn't mean that doors are closed to you forever. I went to a really good university, but it wasn't Oxford. I don't feel like a failure or want to close Oxford down just because I didn't get to go.

WHEN OUR UK leaders attend international conferences do you think any of the other heads of governments give any thought to how/where they were educated? No, they are only interested in how well they converse, negotiate and perform on the world stage. Outcome is what matters at this level, not the process.
It would be interesting to know, but we'll never find out, what the other leaders think of our leaders.

Milly - there's no such thing as a comprehensive school in a grammar area - they lack the top 20% of kids.

And why is it so wonderful to divide kids aged 11 anyway? Wouldn't you prefer all kids to be educated and socialise together? Setting is great and works wonders. No need to ship the brightest off to a different school then coo about how great that school's results and atmosphere are!

It's not giving them anything other than an educational experience which doesn't have disruptive elements of poor, emotionally screwed up, SEN, children in care etc.

Grammar schools - wonderful places where SEN doesn't exist.

The solution is better support for staff for SEN and disruptive behaviour, and removing the difficult students when necessary. That, and setting, are far better than elitist schools for 20%.

Yes - new academies can be selective, pay staff what they like and change their conditions, change the curriculum, change term dates, basically do what they like.

"Schools will never improve when people keep claiming that there is no real difference between the teaching standards at different schools."

Hmm I understand your point, and school improvement is a difficult game. However most failing schools have low ability intakes, higher than average numbers of children on free school meals, in care or with SEN statements. These schools struggle to recruit and retain good staff, who in grammar school areas would rather teach in a grammar (as they are judged when they work in a non-grammar - believe me, I know!)

But hell - it's easier to just say 'bad school' and get your kid into a grammar where you don't have to deal with the contents of the real world

MillyR - were you in an area with a totally selective education system, or one of the areas that still has a few token grammar schools dotted around? I think the sense of failure for most people differs depending on whether they are expected to take the 11 plus and have to deliberately opt out of taking it if they really don't want to, or whether they decide to ask to take it, because there are one or two grammar schools in the area.

'Grammar schools - wonderful places where SEN doesn't exist.'

My DF is the SEN coordinator at the local girls grammar - SEN does exist in grammar schools!

They also let in children in care at a much lower pass mark - I am a grammar school 11+ private tutor.

claig - Tony Blair didn't send his children to equal opportunity schools because he isn't a socialist and doesn't really believe in equality of opportunity. He chose to spend most of his time fawning around the super-wealthy, accumulating an obscene personal fortune out of his own hot air and profiting from the property boom, despite surely seeing it was all a bubble waiting to burst at some point. Being a good capitalist, though, he took advantage of it when times were good and hoped that with his contacts he wouldn't be the last one to get his money out of it. The only differences between him and the Tories were that he was a bigger hypocrite and that he didn't object to the coffers being opened to flash a bit of cash about (it didn't really matter whether it hit the right spot, just so long as it was seen) - so long as his wealthy friends didn't have to contribute too much to the pot.

Still, if anyone's been watching Human Planet - aren't you glad you don't, personally, live in the Arctic?

Here's an example of social mobility via the schools system - mine:

working class family, parents both left school at 14 as had to go to work;

my mother was widowed young and I was brought up in a single parent family with little money;

I passed 11 plus in 1970 and went to respected girls only grammar;

I went to a good university, studied English Lit. and now have good job in top arts organisation.

My son went to a public school, Oxford and is now studying to be a barrister.

That's what the grammar school system did for my family.

Biscuitscoco The kind of story you tell really restores my faith in the power of education. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I've been asked a lot of questions - I will start with Phooey's.

Based on my personal experiences, rather than on research, I would say that grammar schools plus secondary moderns that offer academic GCSE choices to those that want them is the way to go.

I went to two different non-selective secondary schools in different parts of the country that had grammar schools. One was mixed ability teaching for all subjects. I found that didn't have much impact on my academic education but was hugely positive in terms of social interaction and my mixed ability form had a strong group identity.

The second school I attended did set. It was hugely socially divisive and I believe led to discipline problems and lack of respect between pupils. There was certainly a social class dimension to who was in the higher and lower sets.

With some children in a grammar school, I believe it is a case of out of sight out of mind for many children. Setting means that you are faced with a highly competitive atmosphere and the divisions between people are faced everyday. Fear of failure becomes a daily worry.

One of the best things about DS being in a grammar is that he is never going to be set for anything. If he were in a comprehensive, he would have to constantly worry about his performance as measured against others. I'd rather that was a one off event in his school years. No doubt some people thrive on the constant competition that setting provides, but I don't and neither does DS.

As for not knowing about the real world, my parents were teachers in a state residential school for children with emotional and behavioural problems. I lived in staff accommodation within those schools for my entire childhood and mixed with those children, so I think I am pretty experienced in the sharp end of the real world.

The Government shut those schools down to save money, and those children are either struggling to cope in comprehensives where teachers are not meeting their needs, or due to their needs not being met in school are ending up in secure units. If schools are failing because of these kind of kids, then those kids are also being failed. Teachers should be asking the Government to set up more special schools for these children who need continuity of care between home and school.

Of course there are SEN children in grammars. Children with Asperger's syndrome are particularly common at the school DS attends.

To talk about actual research rather than all of our personal prejudices and experiences, I don't really want to repeat all the arguments that I have gone through the research I mentioned on the Grammar school thread, but I will repeat this one. The 164 remaining grammar schools are less socially selective than the 164 most socially selective comprehensive schools (according to the Sutton trust). Schools should be less socially selective, but closing grammars will not achieve that.

I came from a workless household living in a council house but I passed the exam and got into a grammar school. This allowed me to do well and get into a Russell Group university and now I'm an accountant. The grammar school system does facilitate social mobility.

Grammar schools aided social mobility in my family, too (not for me - I went to a grammar school, but the shift up occurred in the generation before that). I therefore have very mixed feelings about the whole debate, as I don't know what would have happened to my family if grammar schools had not existed, but another form of good state education had. I do know that, despite their working class status, there was a lot of parental support, and a close knit family generally, behind the considerable success which the grammar schools helped enable. Education was revered and confidently expected to be the route out of poverty.

In my generation, I had friends who did not benefit so much from their education. I had some friends who passed the 11 plus but who felt severely let down by their grammar school when it turned out they were not very academic, but that trotting off to the local tech to learn to touch-type and do shorthand was severely disapproved of, resulting in poor A-level results and limited practical back-up skills to help make up for it a little bit in the job market. I also had friends who failed the 11 plus and who did find that this dramatically affected their confidence and subsequent achievements. Those who had been borderline but who unfortunately failed either had their confidence damaged by going through an appeal process and ending up at the grammar school a year or two late, very behind academically and assuming they were the least bright people at the school; or their confidence damaged by their parents not bothering to appeal because they didn't have much parental support or attention one way or the other; or their confidence damaged by the fact that their school did not actually offer many academic subjects and almost everyone left education at the age of 16, because their school didn't have a 6th form, anyway, and further education just wasn't really expected of them. Two or three did end up at the 6th form of my grammar school - mostly those who turned out to have been undiagnosed dyslexics with parents who kept questioning why their bright child hadn't passed the 11 plus and wasn't doing well academically at school. Frankly, it all seemed a bit of a mess to me. However, I do agree that the non-setting at my grammar school (except for maths) was great. Many grammar schools do stream for many subjects, though.

Happy to share Crossword addict.

I am a bit passionate about grammar schools/power of education because my own experience proves the point.

My son is very clever there's no doubt (Oxford Scholar - won several prizes in finals - proud mother, forgive me!), but he is no more intelligent than my lovely parents who had to leave school and work in a corset factory (mum) and a car repair shop (dad).

It's true that a supportive family helps, but I absolutely know that without the educational background I was lucky to have neither of us would be where we are today.

I resent slightly the idea that it is the brighter children's responsibility to educate the other children.

It is the responsibility of theeducation system, the teachers and the schools they go to. I'm not depriving anyone's child of an education by sending mine to private school. If the school is poor, it's poor, and it's not my child's responsibility to improve it.

Schools are in a shite place right now because Labour put them there.

For this reason we are killing ourselves to go private.